Definitions of pragmatics:

Pragmatics is the study of language in its social context. It assumes that words have
different meanings in different contexts.
Other possible definitions:
a/ pragmatics is the study of language usage
b/ pragmatics is the study of those relations between language and context that are
grammaticalized, or encoded in the structure of a language
c/ pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of the meaning not captured in a semantic theory
(pragmatics = meaning + truth conditions)
d/ pragmatics is the study of the relations between language and context that are basic to an
account of language understanding
e/ pragmatics is the study of the ability of language users to pair sentences with the contexts in
which they would be appropriate
f/ pragmatics is the study of deixis (at least in part), implicature, presupposition, speech act
and aspects of discourse structure
g/ pragmatics is the study of the relationships between linguistic forms and the users of those
forms
h/ pragmatics is the study of the conditions of human language uses as these are determined
by the context of society
i.pragmatics is the study of the use of language to structure reality as meaningful
experience

Pragmatics - basic bibliography check the library

Cuttings, J. (2008). Pragmatics and Discourse. A resource book for students. 2nd ed.
Routledge.
Grundy, P. 2008 Doing Pragmatics Oxford University Press.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.
Yule, G. and H.G. Widdowson 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford UP.

Basic notions in pragmatics

Small boy: Man
Me: Is that your brother
Small girl: Yes
Me: It takes all sorts
Mother: It certainly does
Barmaid: Are you two both together well you know what I mean
Me: I was wondering too

One of the men: thats how rumours get started

Pharmacist: Do you usually have this sort
Peter: Yea I think so
Pharmacist: They make you drowsy mind
Peter: Oh are there others that dont
Stallholder: Do you want two boxes of grapes for 80p
Peter: No I dont think so. There arent an black ones at the moment, are there
Stallholder: No theyre just green ones
Peter: No my wifes very saucy
Stallholder: <laughs>
Peter: No I didnt mean that you know what I mean
Stallholder: Its just the way you said it

1/ Properties of everyday language

appropriateness,

You are not the porter are you

indirectness,

Hes from Barcelona

Right, shall we begin

inference,

film critic: I looked at my watch after two hours and realized that only twenty minutes have
passed

indeterminacy,

There must therefore be a very good case for not allowing anyone to proceed to Year 3
Headline: Bin Laden paid for Bali bombing

context,

WELCOME
TO POLITICS

Staff
and students please
use swipecards
Visitors please
use intercom

relevance,

Sit down with care

Legs can come off

accommodation (of background knowledge)

Public address: Will Bobby Thompson please report to reception

Peter: A bit late
Man in front of Peter in queue Perhaps they need cheering up in reception

misfires

Once you have experienced a meal at IBIS, youll never want to eat anywhere else
A concrete plan to revive the worlds dwindling coral reefs
We look forward to seeing you soon

I AM HERE NOW
-

Deixis
Speech act
implicature

A: Are you working this afternoon?

B: Im going back to the office.
Physical context: we can think of this in terms of where the conversation is taking place,
what objects are present, what actions are occurring, and so forth.
Epistemic context: the epistemic context refers to what speakers know about the world. For
example, what background knowledge is shared by the speakers is crucially part of your
epistemic knowledge when you have a conversation with someone else?
Linguistic context: the linguistic context refers to what has been said already in the utterance.
For example, if I begin a discussion by referring to Jane Smith and in the next sentence refer
to "her" as being a top notch athlete, the linguistic context lets me know that the antecedent of
"her" (the person "her" refers to) is Jane Smith.
Social context: the social context refers to the social relationship among speakers and hearers.
depends on context, is determined or provided by context, or is otherwise a
matter
of context. Thats not literally true. Assume that by context we mean something
like the
mutually salient features of the conversational situation. Does context determine
what the
speaker says? Suppose he utters an ambiguous sentence, say

Gina wants to belong to a golf club.

Presumably he is saying that Gina wants to belong to a group of golfers, but
given the ambiguity of golf club, he could be saying, however bizarrely, that
Gina wants
to belong to a thing that is used to hit golf balls. Context doesnt literally
determine that he
does not.
And context doesnt constrain what a speaker actually means. It can constrain
only
what he can reasonably mean and reasonably be taken to mean. That is, it
constrains what
communicative intention he can have in uttering a given sentence and
reasonably expect
to get recognized. So suppose someone says,
Harry has a happy face.
Presumably what he means is something to the effect that Harry has a facial
expression indicating that hes happy. Even so, he could mean, however
strangely, that Harrys face is itself happy (as if faces can be in different moods
on the sadness-happiness scale). Similarly, a speaker who says,
Many investors lost every dollar,
presumably means that many investors in some particular deal each lost every
dollar that they respectively put into that deal, even though that goes well
beyond the meaning of the sentence. But it is not literally context that
determines that this is what the speaker means in uttering the sentence.

Situational context - what speakers know about what they can see around them (physical copresence, situation taking place at the moment of speaking)
Background knowledge context what they know about each other (interpersonal
knowledge) and the world (cultural knowledge communities of practice)
Co-textual context what they know about what they have been saying
Her: How are you?
Him: OK.
Her: Did you have friends in and get a video last night?
Him: Oh, I had friends in, but we just watched a little TV.
Her: Ah right.
Him: That was great. How do you feel?
Her: OK.

Grammatical cohesion:
exophoric reference dependent on the context outside the text

endophoric reference referring to items in the same text

intertextuality referring to items of background knowledge (cultural or interpersonal) that
have been mentioned or have occurred in a previously shared situation of activity
anaphora linking back
cataphora linking forward to a referent in the text that follows
associative endophora noun phrases (nouns or pronouns) are not linked explicitly to each
other, but one noun phrase is linked to entities simply associated with the other noun phrase:
You Tube is a popular video sharing website where users can upload, view, and share video
clips. Videos can be rated, and the average rating and the number of times a video has been
watched are both published.
substitution the noun phrase substituted tends to be in the text (endophoric)
Self-confidence should not be a gender issue. Boys are not born more confident than girls.
Society makes them so because it traditionally values their skills and aptitudes above those of
women.
ellipsis
He is afraid of you, Yossarian said. Hes afraid youre going to die of pneumonia. Hed
better be afraid, Chief White Halfoat said. A deep low laugh rumbled through his massive
chest. I will, too, the first chance I get. You just wait and see.
Reference
Exophora

Endophora
Anaphora

Cataphora

Cohesion
Grammatical

Lexical

Reference Substitution Ellipsis

(endophoric)

Repetition Synonyms Superordinates Gen. words

No, she said. not to me. It was chrysanthemums when I married him, and chrysanthemums
when you were born, and the first time they ever brought him home drunk, hed got brown
chrysanthemums in his button-hole.

When 80 mice escaped on a Saudi domestic flight the squeaks of panic drowned out the roar
of the engines. The rodents had escaped from a bag on the overhead luggage rack.
Authorities detained the owner of the bag and the aircraft landed in Tabuk, in the north west
of the country.
The candle-light glittered on the luster-glasses, on the two vases that held some of the pink
chrysanthemums, and on the dark mahogany. There was a cold, deathly smell of
chrysanthemums in the room. Elisabeth stood looking at the flowers.
General words: thing, stuff, place, person, woman, man.
And so he went off to Wolverhampton Ply which he selected for, you know, all the usual
reasons, reasonable place

Newspaper headlines
Editors urge end to press gag
Rail chief reshuffled after big losses
Dead envoy riddle: Yard baffled

Deixis
Index one of three semiotic sign types in the system of Pierce (apart from icons and
symbols)
Indexicality property of language which enables us to identify referents particular to the
context (indexicals, e.g. I, here, now)
Deictics the lexical items which encode context in this way (a closed class of semantic
deficient items)
Deictic use vs non-deictic use of indexicals (depending on the need to be present at the time
of the utterance to identify a referent)

I know youll enjoy reading the chapter

When I say you have to read the chapter, I mean YOU have to read the chapter and
YOU have to read it and YOU have to read it
With a book like this, you never know whether to read every chapter or skip one or
two

Deictic uses
-

Gestural
Symbolic (without accompanying gesture)

Non-deictic uses
-

Empathetic (looking from the addressees perspective)

Anaphoric

Fuzzy cases:

I know YOUll enjoy reading the chapter (contrastive intonation)

You are not supposed to do that (deictic or anaphoric?)
How long ago did the last bus leave?
The last bus leaves at 23:30.

Person deixis
-

first and second person indexical, while third person either indexical or anaphoric
honorific use referring, rather than addressing (Ich danke Ihnen, dziekuj Pastwu,
Voulez vous entrer?); we address our equals and refer to our superiors (Shall we do
this? We could do this)
English you two, you-all
Addressee-inclusive vs addressee-exclusive use (Im going to ask sb to help us; vs
Excuse me, can you help us?) grammaticalized in some languages

Reminder deixis I met this girl the other day.

Social deixis the way speakers index the social status of their addressees relative to the
place in a social structure where they locate themselves (once formal you vs
thou/thee/thine/thy)

Place deixis
Demonstrative noun phrases (this way, those people)
Demonstrative adverbial expressions (here, there, where, up, down, behind, ahead, on your
left)
Proximal/distal demonstratives in English - this/these, that/those (some lgs have three
degrees of proximity, some distinguish proximity to speaker and addressee)
Verbs encoding location or direction come, go, bring, take
Archaic indexicals hither, hence, thither, thence, whither, whence, yonder
Come/go Im coming/going to London on Friday. vs Are you coming/going to Newcastle at
the weekend?
Bring/take, nearside of the car, stage-left/stage-right, left-hand-drive, at midnight (local time)
The location of the office: Just along the corridor on your left/right.

Time deixis
Demonstrative adverbial expressions

Tense markers (in relation to the time of utterance), e.g. this year
I hope this year is going to be good.
Ill see to it today/I have filled up with petrol today.
today, yesterday, tomorrow, and perhaps the day before yesterday, the day after tomorrow
privileged items in English (popojutrze, przedprzedwczoraj in Polish)
Deictic reference - These are on special offer in the supermarket at the moment (pointing to
one bottle of time standing on the table)
Deictic centre Buhlers origin the point of intersection of the main coordinates of the
here-now-I system. By default it is the speakers position at the time of utterance, but it can
shift with contextual hint as in: Just along the corridor on your left/right or without it as in
Im coming to London on Friday. The deictic centre can be updated in the co-text (as in
directions) or not (Back in ten minutes)

Speech Acts
Austin began by distinguishing between what he called constatives and performatives.
A constative is simply saying something true or false.
A performative is doing something by speaking; paradigmatically, one can get married by
saying "I do" (Austin, 1961).
Constatives are true or false, depending on their correspondence (or not) with the facts;
performatives are actions and, as such, are not true or false, but felicitous or infelicitous,
depending on whether or not they successfully perform the action in question. In particular,
performative utterances to be felicitous must invoke an existing convention and be invoked in
the right circumstances
Identifying performatives (vs constatives):
I promise to talk to you
Peter promises to talk to you
I will promise to talk to you
I bet you sixpence that it will rain tomorrow
I apologize
I (hereby) declare war on Zanzibar
I christen this ship the H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth

What do they have in common? the form of a statement, they have an effect of an action,
truth conditions do not apply
How can performative acts go wrong?
I christen this ship H.M..S. Queen Elizabeth
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

There is no ship around

The ship has already a name
I have no authority
..
..
..
..

Felicity conditions

BUT!! Felicity conditions apply to constatives as well

The ship will serve for many years
1. There is no ship around
2. .
3. .
A clear delimitation between performatives and constatives proved to be difficult to establish.
There are explicit performatives; a verb used in a certain way makes explicit the action being
performed:
"I bet that there is a dangerous animal there,"
"I guarantee that there is a dangerous animal there,"
"I warn you that there is a dangerous animal there."
But the same action could be performed implicitly:
"There is a dangerous animal there,"
where both issues of (in)felicities and issues of truth/falsity are simultaneously present.
Instead of pursuing the distinction between performatives and constatives, Austin (1962a)
proposed a new three-fold distinction:
All utterances are acts that consist of:
I apologize
Locutionary act
Illocutionary act
Perlocutionary act

Turn off the light

I christen this ship

Direction of fit
Illocutionary Point

Words to the

World to the words

Sincerity cond

world
Assertives
Directives
Commissives

Commit S to somethings being the

case
Get H to do something
Commit S to a future course of
action

Belief

Want

Intention

Variable (fee

Expressives

Express psychological state

Declarations

Declare a change

representatives: The earth is flat. (S believes X)

declaratives: I pronounce you man and wife.(S causes X)
expressives: I am sorry. (S feels X)
directives: Dont touch that! (S wants X)
commissives: I will be back. We will not do that. (S intends X)

J. Searle
Searle proposes a framework with tree types of conditions:

Preparatory conditions (preconditions)

Sincerity conditions
Essential conditions (definition)

Request
S requests that H performs A
Preparatory:
S believes that H can perform A
S does not believe that H will do A anyway(?)
Sincerity:
S wants H to perform A
Essential:
Counts as an attempt to get H to do A

Promise
S promises to perform A
Preparatory:
S believes that S can perform A
S believes that A is good for H

None

S believes that H believes that A is good for H

S did not intend to do A anyway (?)
Sincerity:
S intends to perform A
Essential:
Counts as taking up a commitment to do A
1. Illocutionary point: This is the characteristic aim of each type of speech act. For instance,
the characteristic aim of an assertion is to describe how things are; the characteristic point of a
promise is to commit oneself to a future course of action.
2. Degree of strength of the illocutionary point: Two illocutions can have the same point but
differ along the dimension of strength. For instance, requesting and insisting that the
addressee do something both have the point of attempting to get the addressee to do that
thing; however, the latter is stronger than the former.
3. Propositional content conditions: Some illocutions can only be achieved with an
appropriate propositional content. For instance, I can only promise what is in the future and
under my control. I can only apologize for what is in some sense under my control and
already the case. For this reason, promising to make it the case that the sun did not rise
yesterday is not possible; neither can I apologize for the truth of Snell's Law.
4. Preparatory conditions: These are all other conditions that must be met for the speech act
not to misfire. Such conditions often concern the social status of interlocutors. For instance, a
person cannot bequeath an object unless she already owns it or has power of attorney; a
person cannot marry a couple unless she is legally invested with the authority to do so.
5. Sincerity conditions: Many speech acts involve the expression of a psychological state.
Assertion expresses belief; apology expresses regret, a promise expresses an intention, and so
on. A speech act is sincere only if the speaker is in the psychological state that her speech act
expresses.
6. Degree of strength of the sincerity conditions: Two speech acts might be the same along
other dimensions, but express psychological states that differ from one another in the
dimension of strength. Requesting and imploring both express desires, and are identical along
the other six dimensions above; however, the latter expresses a stronger desire than the
former.
Convention vs speakers intention (inference)
1. Convention
Can you ... is like an idiom
Indirectness is only apparent.
2. Inference
When interpreting, first compute literal meaning,
then draw conclusions
1a. Could you pass me the salt?
1b. Perhaps you could pass me the salt

1c. You couldnt pass me the salt, could you?

2. You werent going to pass me the salt, were you?
3. Id like you to pass me the salt
Inference:
Why should S be interested in my ability?
This can only be because ...
How did we learn all of these?
Why are they the same in all languages?

Cooperative principle and implicatures

Paul Grice

Natural meaning
Non-natural meaning
Manchester United won
It scored at least one goal more than the other team (natural meaning- entailment)
It played particularly well; it played only modestly etc (non-natural meaning)

co-operative principle: make your conversational contribution such as is required, at

the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange
in which you are engaged

maxims (super maxims) of:

Quantity 1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of
the exchange)
Some of the hijackers have been identified.
The plumber made a reasonable job of fitting our new boiler.
Quantity 2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required
I dont drink.
Oxford won the rowing competition this year.
Try to make your contribution one that is true
Quality 1. Do not say what you believe to be false,
Quality 2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence
Cigarettes are bad for you.
Are your married?

Relevance. Be relevant
What is the date today? It can't be 1 June.
Dont forget Mum on Mothers Day (outside of a pub)
Manner 1. Avoid obscurity of expression
2. Avoid ambiguity
3. Be brief
4. Be orderly
I went to the conference and gave a talk
No graffiti. Penalty 1000.(sign on a bridge support)
Increased threat to your security you can help by keeping your luggage and personal items
with you at all times.

Conversational implicatures (sth left implicit in actual language use and is implied
in conversation) arise because the addressee assumes the speaker is abiding by the
maxims.

John has six credit cards -> John has at most six credit cards
Tim Berner-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989 -> The speaker believes that TBL
invented the World Wide Web in 1989 and has adequate evidence that he did
* ? TBL invented the WWW in 1989, but I dont believe he did
John: What is the time?
Mary: The museum hasnt opened yet.
-> its at least before whenever the museum normally opens
John went to a McDonalds and bought two hamburgers
-> John first went to a Mc Donalds and then bought two hamburgers
-> John went to McDonalds in order to buy two hamburgers

Very special conversational implicatures arise when maxims are flouted (violated)
then the addressee assumes that the speaker is essentially cooperative and must intend
to convey an implied meaning.

War is war -> Terrible things always happen in war. Thats its nature and its no use
lamenting that particular tragedy
Chomsky is a great sociolinguist -> Chomsky is no sociolinguist at all
John: Susan can be such a cow sometimes!
Mary: Oh, what a lovely day today!
-> One shouldnt speak ill of people behind their back etc
John smiled.
The corners of Johns lips turned slightly upward -> John did not exactly smile
Well, its a university.

Im a man (uttered by a man, or by a woman)

He looks his age.
Have you seen that room of hers?
Insults fly in aircraft toilets (Newspaper headline)

Implicatures can thus be calculated (via CP and maxims), they can also be
suspended, cancelled and reinforced:

You have won five dollars. (-> ONLY five)

You have won at least five dollars.
You have won five dollars, in fact, you have won ten!
You have won five dollars, thats four more than one!

Implicatures suspended due to background knowledge:

John and Mary bought an apartment -> together

The Americans and the Russians tested an atom bomb in 1962 -> (one each)

Implicatures can be cancelled by immediate context

John: This CD is eight euros, and I havent got any money on me.
Mary: Dont worry, I have got eight euros. (cancels ->Mary has got only eight euros)
Reinforcement of implicatures do not make them semantically redundant
The soup is warm ->The soup is not hot.
The soup is warm, but not hot. -> The soup is not hot.

Maxims can also be infringed (because of sbs imperfect linguistic performance,

or incapability of thinking clearly):

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking
about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we. (G.W. Bush)
Speakers can also opt out of the cooperative principle Im afraid I cannot give you that
information.

Hedging maxims limiting our commitment

As far as I know, theyre married.

So, to cut a long story short, we grabbed our stuff and ran.
This may sound like a dumb question, but whose hand writing is this?
This may be a bit confused, but I remember being in a car.
Cigarettes are bad for you and thats all there is to it
They say cigarettes are bad for you
The point is that cigarettes are bad for you
Put plainly, cigarettes are bad for you

Well Minister, if you asked me for a straight answer, then I shall say that, as far as we can
see, looking at it by and large, and taking one time with another, in terms of the averages
of departments, then, in the final analysis, it is probably true to say that, at the end of the
day, in general terms, you would probably find that, not to put too fine a point on it, there
probably wasnt very much in it one way or another, as far as one can see, at this stage.
Which maxims do these flout?
You can only afford to pay the number of people you can afford to pay.
Money doesnt grow on trees but it blossoms at our branches.
Now weve ALL been screwed by the Cabinet (Newspaper headline)
This ones a little hot. (about a red-hot cooker plate)
How many divisions has the Pope?
What a beautiful day! (when it rains)
The Wafer happiness (on a billboard beside a main road with an arrow pointing ahead)
Walter Wall Carpeting
BA better connected person
Acts on the spot (about an acne preparation)

Generalized implicature arises irrespective of the context, but is defeasible

Most of Johns friends believe in marriage -> Not all of Johns friends believe in
marriage. (most-> not all)
I was sitting in a garden one day. A child looked over the fence.
I can swim a kilometre in twenty-five minutes. <not more>
Some people believe in God.

Particularized implicatures arise in particular contexts (usually called just

implicatures)
<Im good at swimming>, <Im not as good at swimming as you> <Ill be back
in half an hour> etc
Where is Peter? The light in his office is on. -> Peter is in his office.
Rick: Hey, coming to the wild party tonight?
Tom: My parents are visiting.
Ann: Where are you going with the dog?
Sam: To the V-E-T.
Its the taste (Coca-Cola ad -> good taste).

Scalar implicature display scalar properties

I should be back by eight (will, should, may might)
Manchester won.
Some of the hijackers have been identified.
The courses are sometimes very interesting.
I got some of this jewelry in Hong Kong um, actually I think I got most of it there.

He wasnt a poor candidate, but he was a weak candidate

He wasnt a weak candidate, but he was a poor candidate
Cooperative mechanisms have very little to do with logic, but are grounded in the
pragmatics of conversation.

Conventional implicature (associated with particular lexical items traditionally and

perhaps inappropriately treated as lexical presuppositions). Non-calculable from CP
and the maxims, they do not have to appear in conversation, non-suspendable, noncancellable, non-reinforceable.
Mary suggested black, but I chose white. (contrast)
Dennis isnt here yet. (will be here later)
Yesterday, Mary was happy and ready to work. (in addition)
She put on her clothes and left the house. (and then)
He is Chinese; he therefore knows how to use chopsticks (it follows)
He can read German. Moreover, he can write poems in the language . (in addition)
Mary is taking Chinese cookery lessons. S her husband has bought her a wok.
(provides an explanation)
Actually, always, also, anyway, barely, besides, however, manage to, on the other
hand, only, still, though, too, yet.
Even Presidents have private lives
Conventional implicature ->the attached proposition is at the end of the scale of
expectability
Still, I must take full responsibility for my actions
Conventional implicature ->in spite of what has been said before, there is a further
situation to consider
Said/entailed
Conveyed

natural meaning
conventionally
implicated
generalized
conversationally

non-natural meaning
particularized

Politeness
politeness a means employed to show the awareness of another persons
face

Owing to unforeseen circumstances, one of our Doctors has not been able to
attend morning surgery. Consequently, the other partners are running late. We
apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you, and assure you that all
patients will be seen as quickly as possible.
In order to promote a better learning environment please do not bring food or
drink into this teaching room and remember to switch off your mobile telephone.
Thank you.
What we say encodes not just propositional content but also our understanding
of the relationship between us.
You couldnt let me have a bit of paper by any chance, could you?
Got the time, mate?
Excuse me, would you by any chance have the time?
Blue collar to white collar worker at the university: Excuse me you couldnt tell
me where Room 253 is possibly could you.
We are more likely to use redressive, and hence less economical, linguistic
formulas when we place demands on those we address, especially when we do
not know them well.
Face self esteem. In most encounters our face is put at risk. We use
redressive language to compensate for face-threatening behavior
A Model Person has two kinds of face: positive face (wish to be
understood, admired, treated as a friend) and negative face (wish not to
be imposed on and allowed to go about our business unimpeded)
negative politeness a Face Saving Act which is oriented to the negative
face shows deference, emphasizes the others time and concerns,
apologises
Could you lend me your pen?
I am sorry to bother you, but can I ask you for a pen or something.
positive politeness a FSA which is oriented to the positive face shows
solidarity, emphasizes that both speakers want the same, have common
goals

I would appreciate it if you let me use your pen.

Let us shut the door.
These biscuits smell wonderful.
power (deference) and solidarity in interaction
There is going to be a party, if you can make it.
Come on, let us go to the party. Everyone will be there.
Superordinate politeness strategies when a face-threatening act is to be
performed:
Act on record baldly, without redress
- with positive politeness redress
- with negative politeness redress
Act off record
Do not act
Supermarket trolley situation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

I need a pound coin

Give us a pound for the trolley, love
Excuse me you havent got a pound coin have you
You can never find a pound coin when you need one, can you
---

Social distance (D) + Power Differential (P) + Ratio of Imposition (R) =

degree of face-threat to be redressed by appropriate linguistic strategy
In a caf. There is an umbrella under the seat of the person at the next table,
who gets up to leave without picking it up. What would you say (or not say)
if they were a) a good friend b) a stranger the same age as yourself) a
stranger much older than you?

Please note
Patients who are required to provide samples for analysis, are reminded
that they may only be accepted if they are presented in the appropriate
specimen bottle.

These are available on request from reception or the practice nurse.

Samples which are presented in non-sterile containers present a health
and safety hazard to our staff and therefore cannot be accepted.
In the above notice for patients identify: agentless passives, deference
strategies, impersonal statements of general rules, institutional first person
plural pronoun, reason/explanation
Specific politeness strategies
Positive politeness
Notice/attend to hearers wants
Exaggerate interest/approval
Intensify interest
Use in-group identity markers
Seek agreement
Avoid disagreement
Presuppose/assert common ground
Joke
Assert knowledge of hearers wants
Offer, promise
Be optimistic
Include speaker and hearer in the activity
Give (or ask for) reasons
Assume/assert reciprocity
Give gifts to the hearer (goods, sympathy etc)
Negative politeness
Be conventionally indirect
Question, hedge
Be pessimistic
Minimize imposition
Give deference
Apologize
Impersonalize
State the imposition as a general rule
Nominalize
Go on record as incurring a debt

hedging: Well, I think.., I suppose, He is kind of strange, I just have my

doubts, or something like that, perhaps, may, suggest

 interactive elements which may serve as a bridge between the

propositional information in the text and the writers actual interpretation
taxonomy of hedges:
modal auxiliary verbs (can, may, would)
modal lexical verbs (seem, believe, assume, suggest, argue, indicate,
speculate)
adjectival, adverbial or nominal modal phrases (possible, unlikely, perhaps,
apparently, virtually, assumption, claim, estimate)
approximators (roughly, about, often, occasionally)
introductory phrases (we believe, it is common knowledge)
if clauses (if true, if anything)
compound hedges (it seems reasonable, it would seem somewhat unlikely
that)
politeness principle: minimize the expression of impolite beliefs,
maximize the expression of polite beliefs

maxim of tact: You could borrow my copy if you liked.

maxim of generosity: I could lend you my copy.
maxim of approbation: Your lecture was outstanding.
maxim of modesty: How stupid of me! (*clever)
maxim of agreement: It was a nice performance, wasnt it? Yes, it was,
wasnt it?(*No)
maxim of sympathy: I am terribly sorry (*delighted) to hear about your
cat.