A socio-pragmatic comparative study of

CHAPTER ONE 
INTRODUCTION 
1.0. Preliminaries 
Language is a means of communication. People use language to accomplish such 
functions as ordering, promising, arguing, and so on. However, any communicative 
function needs to be carried out within a context, which may either be interpersonal or 
social. In the process of communication the speakers of a language are expected to be in 
possession of two sets of capabilities: They should have knowledge of the forms of 
language they use. Moreover, they must know how to use this knowledge in negotiating 
meaning. In order to clarify meaning, the speakers and hearers or writers and readers 
should be able to interact.
The term context has two aspects: social and interpersonal. Social context is important 
in studies that focus on sociolinguistic aspects of language. Interpersonal context, 
however, should be studied, according to Levinson (1983), in such sub-disciplines as 
pragmatics, conversation(al) analysis, and discourse analysis. In the present study 
interpersonal context plays a critical role.
Needless to say, the definition of the term pragmatics serves as a good point of 
departure. According to Levinson (1983: 24), Pragmatics refers to “the study of the 
ability of language users to pair sentences with the contexts in which they would be 
appropriate.” Pragmatics covers a number of topics including the “speech-act theory” or 
the study of how we do things with sentences. The speech act theory concerns itself 
with the functions of language. It is usually argued that communication is capable of 
being dismantled into a series of speech acts or communicative acts. These acts are used 
in a systematic way to accomplish certain purposes. 
The notion of the speech act theory has motivated a good number of researchers to 

---

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 
2
fathom the depths of the relationships between form and meaning. A number of research 
projects have focused on the study of conversations. The most outstanding approaches 
to the study of conversations include conversation(al) analysis and discourse analysis. 
The former refers to the analysis of natural conversation. It aims at discovering the 
linguistic features of conversation. It also determines how conversation is used in every-
day life. The latter, however, refers to the study of how sentences combine (in 
spoken/written language) to form such larger meaningful units as paragraphs, paratones, 
conversations, interviews, etc. 
Conversation is assumed to be under the control of a set of maxims and principles. It 
usually proceeds according to interlocutors’ appreciation of these maxims as they 
appear in the utterances of others. These maxims are usually attended to. However, 
there are cases in which these maxims are violated for one reason or another. According 
to Leech (1983:149), conversational principles include first-order principles (including 
cooperative principle, politeness principle, interest principle, and pollyanna principle), 
and higher-order principles (including irony and banter). The cooperative principle 
draws on four maxims: quality, quantity, relation, and manner. The politeness principle, 
however, includes seven maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement, 
phatic, and sympathy. 
Grice (1967) was the first person to propose the concept of cooperative principle. 
According to this principle, language is interpreted on the assumption that its sender is 
cooperating with the receiver in an attempt to exchange meaning by observing (or 
violating) a number of maxims. As mentioned in the above paragraph, the cooperative 
principle has four maxims (see Leech, 1983:149). It is usually assumed that the receiver 
is capable of comprehending the pragmatic meaning of an utterance (the meaning which 
the words take on in a particular context, and between particular interlocutors) on the 
bases of these maxims and the general knowledge of the world or schemata. These also 
help the receiver to discern what the sender intends to do with his or her words. 
The speakers of a language often violate these conversational maxims for one purpose