Previously we saw that when someone says something, they might mean something
very different. In this module, we'll take a closer look at what that means.
For fun, let's take a look at another example. The text below is from a poster I saw in France
when I was in college. The left side is the original French, and the right side is my rough translation.
MORT AUX JEUNES !
On ne le dira jamais assez : le niveau baisse, baisse, baisse, et la jeunesse n'est plus ce qu'elle
était. A preuve ces quatre témoignages désabusés :
"Notre jeunesse [...] est mal élevée, elle se moque de l'autorité et n'a aucune
espèce de respect pour les anciens. Nos enfants d'aujourd'hui [...] ne se lèvent pas
quand un vieillard entre dans la pièce, ils répondent à leurs parents et bavardent au
lieu de travailler. Ils sont tout simplement mauvais."
"Je n'ai plus aucun espoir pour l'avenir de notre pays si la jeunesse d'aujourd'hui
prend le commandement demain, parce que cette jeunesse est insupportable, sans
retenue, simplement terrible."
"Notre monde a atteint un stade critique. Les enfants n'écoutent plus leurs parents.
La fin du monde ne peut pas être très loin."
"Cette jeunesse est pourrie depuis le fond du coeur. Les jeunes gens sont malfaisants
et paresseux. Ils ne seront jamais comme la jeunesse d'autrefois. Ceux d'aujourd'hui
ne seront pas capables de maintenir notre culture."
Ça c'est bien vrai !
Une précision toutefois : la première citation est de Socrate (470-399 av.JC) ; la deuxième est
d'Hésiode (720 av.JC) ; la troisième est d'un prêtre égyptien (2000 av.JC) et la dernière,
vieille de plus de 3000 ans, a été découverte sur une poterie d'argile dans les ruines de
Babylone. Comme le temps passe...
DEATH TO YOUNG PEOPLE!
It can't be said enough: the standard is getting lower and lower, and youth aren't what they used to
be. As evidence, these four disillusioned accounts:
"Our youth are poorly brought up, they mock authority and don't have a whit of respect
for their elders. The children of today don't get up when an elderly person enters the
room, they talk back to their parents and chat instead of working. They are, quite
"I no longer have any hope for the future of our country if the youth of today take
control tomorrow, because these kids are unbearable, without restraint, simply
"Our world has reached a critical point. Children no longer listen to their parents.
The end of the world cannot be far away."
"These kids are rotten from the bottom of their hearts. Young people are wicked and
lazy. They will never be like young people used to be. Those of today won't be capable
of maintaining our culture."
Yeah, that's true!
Nevertheless, a clarification: the first citation is from Socrates (470-399 B.C.); the second is
from Hesiod (730 B.C.); the third is from an Egyptian praetor (2000 B.C.), and the last, more
than 3000 years old, was discovered on a pot in the ruins of Babylon. How the times pass...
It should be clear that the person who wrote this does not actually think the youth of today (or
the youth of the 1990s—since this poster has been around since at
least 1998, if not earlier) are bad. Rather, the writer seems to think that there's nothing especially bad
about modern youth. But the writer doesn't actually say that anywhere. In fact the writer often says
the opposite of this! The writer says, but clearly does not believe, "youth aren't what they used to be".
And, reflecting on those four quotes, the writer says, "Yeah, that's true!", even though the writer thinks
what the quotes are saying is not true! It's pretty clear that the writer was being sarcastic. To figure out
what the writer really meant, we had to consider some additional context: the fact that those quotes were
apparently written millenia apart in ancient times (although I honestly don't know if those are real quotes
or were just made up for this poster, but anyway they help make the author's point), and our own knowledge
that the things those quotes predicted did not actually happen. (Clearly the world has not ended yet!)
This long example illustrates the same thing Jonathon's letter to Mary illustrated: what someone
says is not always what they mean. In fact, over the course of the semester, we will see that what someone
says is rarely what they mean.
"What is said" vs. "what is meant"
This idea is the fundamental starting point of pragmatics. The field of pragmatics is all about
studying how we use language to convey ideas beyond the literal meaning of what we say, and how we understand
what other people mean when they are doing that. (Coming up with an exact definition of what "pragmatics" is,
and where the boundary between pragmatics and other parts of linguistics lies, is a bit more complicated and
is something we'll think about more as this class progresses. But the rough description above is a good
starting point.) In pragmatics there are many distinctions between different aspects of a person's
meaning—and we will discuss many of them in this class. Probably the most basic, most simple, and
most important one is this one. Many pragmatics scholars (starting, I think, with H.P. Grice, whom we'll
hear more about in a later module) refer to literal meaning as "what is
said", and the speaker's real intended meaning as "what is meant".
(The term "what is meant" is, unfortunately, quite confusing, because "meaning" can refer to
many different things, as we're going to see throughout this class; sometimes people use other terms for this.
Zufferey et al., chapter 1, call it "what is communicated", which I rather like. But anyway, the phrase
"what is meant" is so widely used in pragmatics that I'm sticking with it here, in spite of its ambiguity.)
Another pair of terms for the same distinction is "sentence meaning" vs. "speaker meaning".
Sentence meaning (which corresponds to "what is said") is the literal, inherent meaning of a sentence,
based purely on what the words in the sentence mean and how they go together. On the other hand, speaker
meaning (which corresponds to "what is meant") is what the person saying the sentence (the "speaker")
intends to convey by saying that sentence. The message the speaker actually wants to convey ("what is meant",
or the speaker meaning) can often be quite different from what the sentence itself literally means ("what is
said", or the sentence meaning).
Examples where "what is meant" is different from "what is said" are easy to think of or find.
When a person is sweating and they say, "It's hot in here," their words literally are just stating a fact, but
we usually interpret them as meaning a request—something like "Please open a window!" or "Turn on the
air conditioner!" In examples like this, the distinction between "what is said" and "what is meant" is pretty
easy to see. As this class goes on, we will also encounter cases where the distinction is not so
obvious—in fact, in daily life, most people rarely notice the difference between these, because we are
so good at immediately recognizing what is meant. We will also see some examples where there is still
debate over whether the typical interpretation is "said" or "meant".
A quick note on terminology: here, and throughout the rest of the class, I will use the word
"say" to refer to people producing language in any form—speaking, writing, signing, etc. Pragmatics is
about all kinds of language use, not just speech. What pragmatics is really interested in is
utterances, i.e., the act that a person does when they say (or write, or sign) something. An
utterance might consist of a sentence, but it often does not; it might be spoken, but it might be written or
signed. If I were being more careful and accurate, then when doing pragmatic analysis I would always talk
about what people "utter" rather than what they "say". However, that can sometimes get clunky, so throughout
this class I will often use phrases like "Divya said this..." as a shorthand for "Divya
uttered this...". Likewise, when I say "speaker", that's really a shorthand for "utterer", and may
also refer to a writer, signer, etc. By the same token, "hearer" can also mean reader, seer of signed
language, etc. (a more accurate term here would be "addressee"—the person being addressed—but,
again, I will sometimes just say "hearer" for simplicity).
We could break down the "what is said" vs. "what is meant" distinction even further. There are
a few different ways that "what is said" could related to "what is meant":
"What is said" matches "what is meant". The person says exactly what they mean.
"What is said" is directly in conflict with "what is meant". The person does not actually
believe what they said; in fact they believe the opposite. Jonathon's letter and "Death to
young people!" both seem to be examples of this.
"What is said" is unrelated to "what is meant". They're not necessarily in conflict, they're just
"What is said" is less than, but still part of, "what is meant". The person does believe what
they are saying, but they are also suggesting something extra with it.
"What is said" is more than "what is meant". Exaggerations might fit this, although I find
it hard to distinguish this from the case where "what is said" is in conflict with
"what is meant".
Have students brainstorm examples for each of these, and/or have students try to guess the relative
frequency of each of these situations (which is most common, which is least common, etc.). Then have
them share (and hopefully debate!) their ideas with each other.