Foundations of Pragmatics: Language, Context, and Communication

Posted on Jul 1, 2025 in English, Linguistic and Literary Studies

This document delves into the core concepts and theories of pragmatics, the branch of linguistics that studies meaning in context and language use in real-world situations. It covers key definitions, influential schools of thought, and major theories such as Speech Act Theory, Reference and Deixis, (Im)politeness, and Relevance Theory.

Defining Pragmatics: Cognition, Context, and Culture

What is Pragmatics?

Definition: A branch of linguistics that studies meaning in context and language use in real situations.
Origin: Gained modern status in the 20th century through semiotic theory.
Key Author: Charles Morris (1938) defined the pragmatic dimension of semiosis as the relation of signs to interpreters.
Distinctions:
- Semantics: Focuses on abstract, timeless meanings.
- Pragmatics: Concerned with what speakers mean in specific contexts.
Core Idea: Pragmatics emphasizes context, speaker intention, and actual use, complementing semantics.

Why Develop Pragmatic Awareness?

Helps interpret indirect, ironic, and context-dependent meanings.
Enhances communicative competence, emotional intelligence, and social awareness.

The Concept of Context: Dynamic and Multifaceted

Types of Context:
- Linguistic: Co-text, pronouns, deixis, timing.
- Social: Institutional setting, roles (e.g., teacher-student), identity (gender, age).
- Cultural: Norms, values, and interpretations tied to cultural background.
- Cognitive: Beliefs, assumptions, intentions.
- Emotional-Attitudinal: Emotions and attitudes affect communication.
Key Authors:
- Fetzer (2004) distinguished linguistic, social, socio-cultural, and cognitive context.
- Alba-Juez & Mackenzie (2016) added emotional-attitudinal context as central.
- Foolen (2012) emphasized emotional impact on communication.

Underdeterminacy of Language

Language often underdetermines meaning, requiring contextual interpretation.

Types (based on Grundy and Huang):
1. Linguistic meaning underdetermines what is said.
2. What is said underdetermines what is meant.
Key Authors:
- Carston (2002) focused on the underdeterminacy of linguistic expressions.
- Grundy (2008) emphasized context-dependence and ambiguity (e.g., “child psychiatrist”).
- Huang (2015) explored lexical and syntactic ambiguity and underdeterminacy.

Main Schools of Pragmatic Thought

Anglo-American School
- Component View: Pragmatics is one part of linguistic theory.
- Topics: Implicature, presupposition, speech acts, deixis, reference.
- Key Scholars:
  - Stephen Levinson (1983)
  - Geoffrey Leech (1983)
  - George Yule (1996)
  - Louise Cummings (2005)
European Continental School
- Perspective View: Pragmatics is a broad cognitive, social, and cultural science.
- Key Scholars:
  - Jef Verschueren (2009) defined pragmatics as a science of language and communication in context.
  - Bublitz & Norrick (2011) emphasized communicative action across all contexts.

Convergence: Both schools increasingly overlap, e.g., the component view exploring cultural aspects and vice versa.

Micro- and Macro-Pragmatics

Micro-pragmatics: Specific topics (implicature, deixis).
Macro-pragmatics: Broad functional approach to language in all contexts.
Key Point: While different in scope, both micro- and macro-pragmatics are essential for full understanding.

Pragmatics and Cognition

Key Concepts:
- Experientialism (Lakoff, 1987): Meaning is shaped by embodied experience, not pure logic. Language, culture, and thought are interrelated.
Key Authors:
- George Lakoff (1987) introduced the concept of experientialism.
- Cuenca (2003) advocated for a dynamic integration of syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and cognition.
- Bosque (2010) discussed the limitations of translating emotions across languages (e.g., cariño vs. love).

Indirect Meanings

Pragmatic in nature because they depend on inference and shared knowledge.
Key Author: Dascal (1983) highlighted indirectness as risky and costly (cognitively and communicatively).

Conventionalized and Grammaticalized Indirect Meanings

Concepts:
- Conventionalization: Indirect meanings become expected and automatic (e.g., “Could you…”).
- Grammaticalization: Originally indirect forms become part of the grammar (e.g., “please”).
Examples:
- “Is the Pope Catholic?” = obvious yes
- “Let’s…” = proposal, now grammaticalized

Pragmatics and Culture

Types of Communication (Grundy, 2008):
- Intracultural: Within the same culture.
- Cross-cultural: Native and non-native speaker interaction.
- Intercultural: Speakers from different cultures using a shared language.
- Transcultural: General term for any communication outside one’s culture.

Comparative Pragmatics

Universalists:
- Paul Grice (1975) proposed the Cooperative Principle and 4 Maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner).
- Brown & Levinson (1987) developed the Politeness Theory based on face and universals.
Relativists:
- Kramsch (1993) emphasized cultural specificity.
- Anna Wierzbicka (2003) argued against universals, in favor of cultural meaning systems.
- Scollon, Wong Scollon & Jones (2012) argued against the concept of “culture” as stable. They proposed discourse systems (ideology, face systems, forms of discourse, socialization) and suggested using interdiscourse system communication instead of “intercultural.”
Key Concept: Coulmas (1981) emphasized routines and predictability in conversational language.

Speech Act Theory: Language as Action

Speech Act Theory posits that language is not merely descriptive but performative, enabling speakers to perform actions through their utterances.

Origin and Foundation

John L. Austin (1962) in his book How to Do Things with Words, claimed that language is not just descriptive, but performative — we use language to act.
Contradicted logical positivism (e.g., Russell, Moore), which emphasized truth conditions.
Introduced the concept of performative utterances (e.g., “I apologize”, “I promise”).

Performative vs. Constative Utterances

Constative: Describes facts, can be true or false.
- Example: “The Nile is in Africa.”
Performative: Does something in speaking.
- Example: “I pronounce you man and wife.”

Austin originally distinguished these but later argued that all utterances involve doing.

Characteristics of Performatives

Self-verifying: The act is accomplished by being said (e.g., “I apologize” is itself the apology).
Self-referential: The verb refers to what the speaker is doing.
Non-falsifiable: Cannot be true or false.

Types of Performatives (Thomas, 1995)

Metalinguistic: Clearly states the act.
- Example: “I object to this.”
Ritual: Tied to formal settings and cultural procedures.
- Example: “I baptize you…”
Collaborative: Requires others’ participation.
- Example: “I challenge you.”
Group: Performed by multiple speakers on behalf of a collective.
- Example: “We find the defendant guilty.”

Felicity Conditions (Austin, 1962)

Conditions that must be met for a speech act to be effective:

A.1–A.2: There must be a recognized procedure and appropriate context/participants.
B.1–B.2: Procedure must be executed correctly and completely.
C.1–C.2: Participants must have the required intentions and follow through.

Infelicities:

Misinvocations: Wrong context/person (e.g., unauthorized marriage declaration).
Misexecutions: Procedure performed incorrectly.
Abuses: Insincere or hollow acts (e.g., fake apology).

Explicit vs. Implicit Performatives

Explicit: Use a performative verb (“I promise…”).
Implicit: Use intonation, mood, or markers instead (“Sure, I’ll do it”).
Example:
- Explicit: “I order you to leave.”
- Implicit: “Leave now.”

Austin later argued that the distinction collapses — all speech is performative in nature.

Austin’s Three Types of Acts

Locutionary Act: The literal act of saying something.
Illocutionary Act: The intention behind the utterance (e.g., request, offer, order).
Perlocutionary Act: The effect on the listener (e.g., persuade, frighten, annoy).
Example:
- Utterance: “Can you help me?”
- Locution: Literal question.
- Illocution: Request for help.
- Perlocution: Listener helps.

Speech Acts and Grammatical Mood

Imperative → Directives: “Close the window.”
Indicative → Statements, questions: “It’s cold here.”
Subjunctive → Wishes/prayers: “God bless you.”

However, form does not always match function. For example, “Can you pass the salt?” is a request, not an ability question.

Indirect Speech Acts

John R. Searle (1969, 1975) expanded Austin’s work; introduced the primary vs. secondary speech act distinction.
- Primary: The real intention (e.g., request).
- Secondary: The literal meaning (e.g., question).
Example: “Could you open the door?” → Primary: request, Secondary: question.
Inference is key: We derive the indirect meaning based on context and shared background.

Searle’s Taxonomy of Speech Acts (1975)

Representatives: Assert or describe the world.
- E.g.: assert, state, boast, complain.
Directives: Get the hearer to do something.
- E.g.: order, request, advise, invite.
Commissives: Commit speaker to a future action.
- E.g.: promise, vow, threaten.
Expressives: Express speaker’s emotions or attitudes.
- E.g.: thank, apologize, congratulate, regret.
Declarations: Change institutional reality.
- E.g.: declare war, baptize, fire someone.

Note: Some acts overlap. For example, “I invite you” can be both a directive and a commissive.

Searle’s F(p) Formula

F = Illocutionary Force (e.g., “I promise”)
p = Propositional Content (e.g., “I will come”)
F(p) = Full Speech Act: “I promise (F) I will come (p)”

Cross-Cultural and Applied Perspective

Key Points:
- Illocutionary forms differ across languages and cultures.
- In Japanese: respond to compliments with modesty.
- In West Africa: sympathy is used instead of apology.
Key Studies:
- Blum-Kulka et al. (1989): Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project found variation in directness: Argentinian Spanish most direct; Australian English most indirect.
- Huang (2006): Some cultures lack certain speech acts (e.g., thanking, promising).
- Hinchcliffe (2000): Divorce in Islamic cultures as a ritual performative (“I divorce thee”).

Applications and Legacy

Linguistics: Searle’s influence helped integrate speech acts into formal linguistics.
- Functional Discourse Grammar (Hengeveld & Mackenzie, 2008): treats illocution as a key component at the interpersonal level.
Psycholinguistics: Bucciarelli et al. (2003) found that conventional indirect speech acts are processed as quickly as direct ones by children.
AI and Computational Linguistics: Indirect meanings challenge machine understanding.
- “Do you know when the next train leaves?” implies: “Tell me when it leaves.”
Discourse Analysis: Geis (1995) criticized idealized examples; emphasized real conversational data. Shift away from intuition-based to empirical, interaction-based study.

Critiques of Classical Speech Act Theory

Over-reliance on:
- Idealized native speaker intuition
- Performative formulas (IFIDs)
- Lack of detailed contextual theory

Nevertheless, these critiques have spurred further pragmatic research, not invalidated the theory.

Reference, Deixis, and Inference in Pragmatics

This section explores how speakers identify entities, point to context, and derive unstated meanings through inference, presupposition, and implicature.

Reference

Definition: Reference is a pragmatic mechanism that allows speakers to identify entities in discourse. It relies on shared knowledge and speaker-hearer intentions.
Key Features:
- Reference ≠ Denotation: Reference is speaker-intended; denotation is dictionary meaning.
- Deferred (Metonymic) Reference: e.g., “Room 25 has complained” refers to the guest, not the physical room.
Types of Reference:
- Definite: (e.g., the cat, she, there, yesterday)
- Indefinite: (e.g., a man, some time, anyone)
- Specific vs. Generic:
  - Specific: Refers to particular individuals/entities.
  - Generic: Refers to classes or types (e.g., “Washing machines are useful”).
Types of Textual Reference (Martin & Rose, 2003):
- Anaphoric: Refers back (e.g., the dog after “A dog…”).
- Bridging: Indirect backward reference (e.g., the food referring to a previously mentioned restaurant).
- Cataphoric: Refers forward (e.g., “He’s great, that man!”).
- Esphoric: Reference made within the same noun phrase.
- Homophoric: Reference based on shared cultural knowledge (e.g., God, the Pope).
- Exophoric: Reference to physically perceivable items outside text (e.g., “Look! The red motorbike…”).
- Ideophoric: Introduces fictional referents not perceivable (e.g., “Mrs. Dalloway said…”).

Deixis

Definition: Deixis (“pointing”) refers to words/expressions whose meaning depends on context—especially the speaker’s location in time and space (deictic center).
Basic Types (Levinson, 2006):
- Person Deixis: I, you, he/she
- Temporal Deixis: now, yesterday, then
- Spatial Deixis: here, there, this/that
- Discourse Deixis: in the next chapter, as stated before
- Social Deixis: tú/usted, Sir, titles
Subtypes:
- Gestural: Requires pointing or physical gesture (e.g., “You and you” while pointing).
- Symbolic: No gesture needed—context suffices (e.g., “What are you doing?”).
- Recognitional/Empathetic: e.g., “That blond woman…” helps the hearer recall.
Grammaticalization: Spatial deixis historically gives rise to person, time, and discourse deixis.
- Examples:
  - English: he/she from PIE roots related to spatial deixis.
  - Spanish: él/ella from Latin illum/illam (‘that one’).

Inference

Definition: Inference is the cognitive process through which listeners derive unstated meanings from discourse.
Types:
- Semantic Inference: Based on logical structure (e.g., syllogism).
- Pragmatic Inference: Based on context, speaker intent (e.g., irony, implicature).
- Both: Presupposition.

Presupposition

Definition: A presupposition is an implicit assumption embedded in a statement that both speaker and hearer accept as true.
Types of Presupposition:
- Existential: Definite noun phrases imply existence.
  - E.g.: Peter’s car ⇒ Peter exists, owns a car.
- Factive: Triggered by verbs like know, realize, regret.
  - E.g.: She realized he lied ⇒ He lied.
- Connotative: Linked to lexical items and their connotations.
  - E.g.: accused ⇒ bad action assumed.
Trigger Examples:
- Factive predicates: regret, know
- Implicative predicates: manage (implies success), fail (implies attempt)
- Cleft sentences: “It was X who did Y”
- Counterfactive predicates: wish, pretend
- Loaded questions: “When did you stop…?”
Key Scholars: P.F. Strawson (1950) offered a semantic definition of presupposition (problematic). Later reformulated in pragmatic terms to account for context and shared assumptions.

Implicature

Definition: Inferred meaning not explicitly stated. Proposed by Paul Grice (1975) as central to pragmatics.
Two Types (Grice):
- Conversational Implicature: Derived via Grice’s Cooperative Principle and its maxims (Quantity, Quality, Relation, Manner).
  - Example: “Can you pass the salt?” ⇒ Request
- Conventional Implicature: Inherent to words, not cancellable.
  - Examples: but (contrast), even (unexpectedness)
Properties of Conversational Implicature:
- Cancellable
- Nondetachable (depends on content, not form)
- Calculable (inferable via maxims)
- Nonconventional
Flouting Maxims (to generate implicature):
- Quality: irony, sarcasm (e.g., “What a clever idea!”)
- Quantity: understatement, overstatement
- Relation: irrelevance (often humorous or polite)
- Manner: ambiguity or obscurity
Other Types of Non-observance (Thomas, 1995):
- Violating: e.g., lying (hidden)
- Opting out: refusal without implicature (e.g., priest in court)
- Infringing: due to incompetence or impairment
- Suspending: e.g., in SMS, where brevity is expected

Generalized & Particularized Conversational Implicature

Generalized (GCI): Does not require specific context.
- “I met a woman” ⇒ not someone close.
- “I can run a mile in 4 minutes” ⇒ not faster than 4 minutes.
Particularized (PCI): Requires specific context to infer.
- “Jack is very happy” ⇒ only implies Lily is with him if shared context supports it.

Neo-Gricean Theories

Herbert P. Grice’s work inspired further models:

Laurence R. Horn
- Scalar Implicature: Using some ⇒ not all
- Lexical Gaps: some ⇒ no need for word like “nall” (not all)
- Q-Principle: Say as much as required
- R-Principle: Say no more than required
Stephen C. Levinson
- Developed Theory of Presumptive Meaning (2000)
- Distinguished three types of meaning:
  - Entailment
  - Utterance-type meaning (default GCI)
  - Utterance-token meaning (contextual PCI)
- Levinson’s Heuristics:
  - Q-Principle: Speaker gives strongest statement; hearer infers truth limits.
  - I-Principle: Speaker is economical; hearer enriches meaning.
  - M-Principle: Marked expressions signal marked situations.

Theories of (Im)politeness in Pragmatics

This section examines how language is used to manage interpersonal relationships, social harmony, and “face” needs, encompassing both polite and impolite strategies.

What Is (Im)politeness in Pragmatics?

Definition: (Im)politeness refers to how language is used to manage interpersonal relationships, social harmony, and face needs. It includes both polite and impolite strategies depending on context, intent, and culture.
Key Ideas:
- Politeness involves empathy, tact, and attention to the interlocutor’s feelings and social expectations.
- Impoliteness may be strategic, accidental, or institutionalized (e.g., political debate).
- Emotional context is as important as cultural and social context.
- It is a pragmatic phenomenon and not just about “good manners.”

Major Approaches to Politeness (Fraser, 1990)

Social-Norm View: Politeness as social conventions of etiquette (e.g., Jespersen 1965; Quirk et al., 1985). Focused on “good manners” as defined by society. Largely outdated; now replaced by more nuanced views.
Conversational-Contract View: Associated with Fraser (1990) and Fraser & Nolen (1981). Emphasizes dynamic negotiation of roles and expectations in conversation. Based on Grice’s Cooperative Principle and Goffman’s “face.”
Conversational-Maxim View: Based on Grice’s Maxims (Quality, Quantity, Relation, Manner).
- Key Authors: Robin Lakoff, Geoffrey Leech, Yueguo Gu.
Face-Saving View (Brown & Levinson, 1978/1987): Most influential model. Politeness strategies are attempts to manage face (social self-image).
- Face has two aspects:
  - Negative Face: Freedom from imposition.
  - Positive Face: Desire for approval and connection.

Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1978/1987)

Concept of Face (from Goffman, 1967):
- Positive Face: Desire to be liked and appreciated.
- Negative Face: Desire to act freely without imposition.
Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs):
- Threats to the hearer’s face: criticisms, orders, requests, advice.
- Threats to the speaker’s own face: apologies, thanks, acceptance of compliments.
Politeness Strategies:
- Bald on Record: Direct, no politeness (e.g., “Help!”).
- Positive Politeness: Build rapport (e.g., compliments, solidarity).
- Negative Politeness: Hedge and minimize imposition (e.g., “Would you mind…?”).
- Off-Record: Indirect hints (e.g., “It’s cold in here.” → implying request to close the window).
- Avoidance: Don’t say anything.
Sociological Variables:
- D (Distance)
- P (Power)
- R (Rank of imposition)
Politeness Weight Formula: W(x) = D(S,H) + P(H,S) + R(x)
Universality Claim: B&L claim their model applies to all cultures. This universality has been heavily criticized (e.g., Wierzbicka 2003).

Conversational-Maxim View

Robin Lakoff (1973)
- Two Rules of Pragmatic Competence:
  - Be Clear
  - Be Polite
- Politeness subdivided into:
  - Don’t Impose → Formal politeness
  - Give Options → Informal politeness
  - Make A Feel Good → Intimate politeness
Geoffrey Leech
- Politeness Principle (1983) + Tact Maxim
- Six Maxims (1983):
  - Tact
  - Generosity
  - Approbation
  - Modesty
  - Agreement
  - Sympathy
- Two Types of Politeness:
  - Absolute Politeness: Intrinsic to act type
  - Relative Politeness: Context-sensitive
- Revised Model (2014):
  - General Strategy of Politeness (GSP): Associate favorable values with the other (O), and unfavorable values with the self (S).
  - Introduced:
    - Pragmalinguistic Scale: Related to form and semantic structure.
    - Sociopragmatic Scale: Related to social norms and contexts.
Yueguo Gu (1990, 1997)
- Proposed a Chinese model of politeness.
- Focuses on Confucian-based concepts of normative social behavior.
- Politeness as culturally shaped and not individualistic.
- Emphasized the collectivist orientation of Eastern cultures.

Relational and Postmodern Approaches

Richard Watts (2003)
- Differentiated between:
  - Politeness1: Laypeople’s sense of politeness.
  - Politeness2: Scientific concept of politeness.
- Advocated for analysis of real interaction rather than abstract models.
- Introduced concept of relational work: participants negotiate politeness dynamically.
Locher and Watts (2005)
- Extended relational perspective.
- Concepts:
  - Politic Behavior: Unmarked, appropriate
  - Polite Behavior: Marked positively
  - Impolite/Rude Behavior: Marked negatively
Arndt & Janney (1979, 1983, 1992)
- Emotive Approach: Focus on emotional and paralinguistic dimensions (intonation, gestures).
Spencer-Oatey (2000, 2008)
- Rapport Management Model:
  - Face Management: Personal, relational, group level.
  - Sociality Rights: Entitlement to fairness and association.
Frame-Based Approach (Terkourafi, Aijmer, Deutschmann)
- Focus on formulaic and culture-specific patterns.
- Terkourafi (1999, 2001a, 2005): Politeness as pre-patterned and contextually tied.

Theories of Impoliteness

Jonathan Culpeper
- Key Works: 1996, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2017
- Impoliteness Strategies:
  - Bald on record impoliteness
  - Positive impoliteness (e.g., exclusion, insults)
  - Negative impoliteness (e.g., invasion of privacy)
  - Sarcasm/mock politeness
  - Withholding politeness
- Definition (2005:38): Impoliteness arises when (1) the speaker intends to attack face, (2) the hearer perceives an attack, or both.
- Incorporates non-verbal cues (e.g., eye-rolling, ignoring).
Silvia Kaul de Marlangeon
- Corpus: Argentinian Tango lyrics (1920s)
- Identified 11 situations for impoliteness (voluntary, involuntary, ironic, self-directed, overwhelming silence, fustigation, etc.)
- Proposed an endecatomic (11-part) model of impoliteness with varying intensity levels.

From Politeness to (Im)politeness as Continuum

Politeness vs. impoliteness is no longer seen as binary.

Terms such as:
- Politic behavior (Watts)
- Unmarked politeness (Terkourafi)
- Non-politeness (Kerbrat-Orecchioni)

Contemporary approaches emphasize relational negotiation and affect.

Relevance Theory: Cognition and Communication

Relevance Theory, developed by Sperber & Wilson, proposes a single cognitive principle—Relevance—as sufficient to explain utterance interpretation.

Origins and Theoretical Foundations

Main Contributors: Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson (Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 1986; updated 2007).
Built on H. Paul Grice’s pragmatic theory, particularly:
- Communication is based on recognition of speaker intentions.
- Utterances generate expectations, classically captured by the Cooperative Principle and Maxims.
Sperber & Wilson agree with Grice’s first claim but reject the need for multiple maxims. Instead, they argue a single cognitive principle—Relevance—is sufficient.
Key Claim: Relevance is the core principle governing interpretation: speakers aim to be relevant; hearers assume relevance and interpret accordingly.

Core Principles of Relevance Theory

Cognitive Principle of Relevance: “Human cognition tends to be geared to the maximization of relevance.” (Sperber & Wilson 2007: 610)
- We are naturally inclined to prioritize inputs that yield the most contextual effects for the least cognitive effort.
Communicative Principle of Relevance: “Every ostensive stimulus conveys a presumption of its own optimal relevance.” (2007: 612)
- Communication is ostensive-inferential: speaker engages in ostension, hearer in inference.
- Presumption of Optimal Relevance:
  1. Input is worth the audience’s processing effort.
  2. It is the most relevant one compatible with the communicator’s abilities and preferences.

Relevance in Cognition and Communication

Contextual Effects (Sperber & Wilson, 1983):
- Adding new assumptions
- Strengthening old ones
- Revising or cancelling old assumptions
Cognitive Effects:
- Most significant: contextual implications (conclusions drawn from input + context).
- Others: belief revision, confirmation of expectations, emotional updates.
Relevance increases with:
1. Greater cognitive effects,
2. Lower processing effort.
Illustration:
- “I’m free on Friday” = maximally relevant (clear, low effort).
- “I don’t have to work on Friday” = more inferential work.
- “Unless (2−3)(2−2)=0…” = high effort, low relevance.

Ostensive-Inferential Communication

Key Definitions:
- Ostension: Making informative intention overt (e.g., gestures, tone, words).
- Inferential Communication: Hearer interprets ostension using background knowledge.
Relevance Theory treats ostension and inference as two perspectives on the same process.
Two Levels of Communication:
- Informative Intention: The content conveyed.
- Communicative Intention: Making informative intention recognizable.
Understanding occurs only when the hearer grasps both.

Explicature and Implicature (Wilson & Sperber, Cruse)

Explicature: A fully enriched, explicit propositional meaning derived from decoding and inference.
- Processes:
  - Disambiguation (e.g., “date” = fruit or appointment).
  - Reference Assignment (e.g., “it” = the exam).
  - Ellipsis Enrichment (e.g., “She is too thin [for modeling]”).
  - Semantic Incompleteness (e.g., “We were chatting for some time”).
- Higher-Order Explicature: Relates to speech act force or speaker’s attitude (e.g., advice, reprimand).
Implicature: Inferred meaning not directly encoded.
- Implicated Premises: Background assumptions.
- Implicated Conclusions: Inferred conclusions.
- Example:
  - Paula: Do you love me?
  - Jeremy: No, I don’t. (smiling, hugging)
  - Explicature: Literal denial.
  - Implicature: Yes, I love you (ironic/teasing)

Unlike Grice, Sperber & Wilson reject maxims. All implicatures are guided by the Principle of Relevance.

Procedural vs. Conceptual Meaning

Conceptual Meaning: Encodes concepts contributing to truth-conditions.
- Examples: house, tree, fast.
Procedural Meaning (Blakemore 1987, 2002): Encodes instructions for processing meaning.
- Examples:
  - Discourse Connectives: but, so
  - Pronouns: I, you
  - Mood Indicators: imperative, interrogative
  - Interjections: wow, ouch

Blakemore (1983), Wilson & Sperber (1993), and Clark (2013) emphasize that procedural meaning is harder to define, explain, and translate. Expressions may encode both conceptual and procedural meaning (Fraser 2006; Escandell-Vidal & Leonetti 2011).

Relevance Theory and Grammar Application

Application to Modality (e.g., can): Interpretation depends on:
- Propositional content
- Contextual background knowledge
Example:
- “My child can write her name” → ability
- “If you have a ticket, you can enter” → permission
- “It can’t rain today!” → epistemic possibility

Interpretation is determined inferentially by relevance, not fixed by form.

Visual Communication and Multimodal Relevance

Relevance Theory applies to nonverbal communication.
Images and signs (e.g., exit signs) carry ostensive stimuli.
- Explicature: “This is the exit.”
- Implicature: “You should go this way.”
- Higher-order explicature: Directive with safety intent.
Forceville & Clark (2014): Gestures and pictograms can also yield explicatures and implicatures.

Applications of Relevance Theory

Humor: Covert and overt meanings; punchlines rely on sudden shifts in relevance.
Advertising: Messages often puzzle initially; relevance-based interpretation enhances memory and persuasion.
Literature: Provides a framework for layered readings and multiple interpretations.
Translation: Clarifies difference between decoding (literal) and interpretation (contextual, relevance-based).

Criticism of Relevance Theory

Strong Cognitive Orientation: Downplays social/interactional dimensions.
Empirical Concerns: Claims about most relevant interpretation being automatically selected lack full experimental support.