Proyectos diseñados para implementar las herramientas de calidad

The second part of the methodology which I will present in this chap-ter analyses the texts at pragmatic level. For texts produced and used in the professions, goal-orientation, domain specificity and situated-ness are constitutive features of the texts. As a theoretical background to the methodology I have developed, I will give a brief overview of the pragmatic field.

3.2.1 Theoretical background

In his Foundations of the theory of signs from 1938 Morris launched a semiotic theory in which he distinguished a semantic, a pragmatic and a syntactic level. When he used the term pragmatic for ‘the relation of signs to their interpreters’ (p. 30), he consciously connected his theory with the school of language philosophy called pragmatism. According to Peirce, one of the advocates of pragmatism, the meaning of a linguistic statement is the practical consequences which follow from the statement if this is true. ‘To act is to act meaningfully’ is a central idea within prag-matism, and, as Morris claimed, all our actions are goal-directed, which means that they can be described and explained fully, only if one can grasp the motives and purposes which lie behind them.

The cross-disciplinary character of pragmatics is also relevant for the methodology which I will describe below. The pragmatic analysis relates language practices to psychological, social and situational factors, thus also providing a basis for multidimensional understanding of linguistic actions. Pragmatic theory therefore has much in common with sociolin-guistics, anthropology and ethnomethodology and is a useful tool for the analysis of both spoken and written discourse (cf. Levinson, 1983).

‘Speech act theory’ also developed within the philosophical trad-ition. In a series of famous lectures, Austin developed his ideas about performatives, which means that words, such as an utterance or a sen-tence, can perform an act if the situated frame is appropriate and in

line with established convention (1976: 14–15). In his lectures, Austin further distinguishes three different senses or dimensions of the ‘use of a sentence’ or of ‘the use of language’: the locutionary act, e.g. the meaning, the illocutionary act, e.g. the conventional force of the utter-ance, and the perlocutionary act, e.g. what we bring about or achieve by saying something (p. 109). The illocutionary effect is achieved when an utterance/sentence is performed in a given context. The perlocutionary effect is related to non-verbal actions, which are performed as a conse-quence of the locutionary and illocutionary acts.

Searle (1969) developed Austin’s ideas further, thus making it possible to apply them to authentic text and talk. One problem with Austin’s theory was related to intention and effect. Austin stated that the illocutionary force is the successful achievement of the speaker’s intentions. This, however, leads to difficulties for the analyst. How should one separate the speaker’s intention from the effect? Instead Searle attaches the illocutionary force to the listener’s interpretation of the utterance, or the reader’s interpretation of the sentence.

Searle also distinguished some basic illocutions, under which all other illocutions could be categorized: Representatives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, Declaratives. As many analysts have found, it is not always easy to assign one single force to an utterance in an authentic conversation or negotiation, where what is shown at a surface level, e.g. directly expressed, not infrequently differs from that which underlies it, e.g. indirectly meant. Spoken discourse is indeed a process where meaning is constructed successively and col-lectively. For the analysis of written discourse, however, I have found that speech act theory provides a useful tool to grasp the action orien-tation of the text at a micro level.

The conventional contract-bound character of discourse is also central for the ideas developed in Grice (1975). Grice, who was also a philosopher, proposed four conversational maxims that arise from the pragmatics of natural language and which were related to quality, quantity, relation and manner. The contract between speakers/authors and listeners/readers thus means that speakers/authors are assumed to follow certain maxims, i.e. to say or write what they believe is the truth (quality), make their contributions as informative as is required for the current purpose of the exchange (quantity), say what is rele-vant (relation) and express themselves in an orderly and clear way, avoiding obscurity and ambiguity (manner). Grice did not assume that all people should constantly follow these maxims. Instead they should be understood as describing the assumptions listeners and readers normally make about the way speakers will talk. If the overt surface meaning of a sentence, however, is not consistent with the

Gricean maxims although the circumstances lead us to think that the author/speaker is nonetheless obeying the cooperative principle, we tend to look for other meanings that could be implied by the sen-tence. In a communicative event when the speaker/author – either purposefully or unintentionally – flouts or violates the maxims, some other, hidden meaning might be implied. If someone (A) has suggested a game of tennis to a friend, who in turn just replies with

‘It’s raining’, this short utterance is indeed a violation of the maxims of quality and quantity of spoken language. In the particular situated frame, however, the reasoning behind the utterance becomes clear to A, i.e. she understands the implied meaning.

A central idea in Grice’s theory is the assumed contract between the participants in the communicative event. A similar contract lies behind the pragmatic approach, developed for instance in Rossipal (1978), which views all communication as directly or indirectly action-directed. The author or speaker is considered to have a main purpose in making the statement, and this main purpose can be traced to one or more parts of the text or sequence. This part of the text/sequence can be described as its goal information. The purpose of the other parts of the text is to help make readers cooperate, understand, agree to and know how to act in accordance with the author’s goal. This later information is called auxiliary information. These categories and sub-categories will be referred to in 3.2.2.2., where I present the method for pragmatic analysis at macro level.

3.2.2 Method for pragmatic analysis

The pragmatic methodology described below is directed towards both the micro and the macro levels. The categorization of the illocution types of the clauses is directed towards the micro level of the text, while the categorization of the subsidiary function of the text parts is directed towards the macro level. The pragmatic analysis is therefore undertaken in two steps.

3.2.2.1 Micro analysis: illocutions

The first step of the pragmatic analysis has as its aim a micro analysis of professional texts and the method used is based on speech act the-ory, as this was developed by Searle (1969). Taking Searle’s categories as a starting point (cf. above), I distinguish the following five main speech act types: informative, explicative, expressive, argumentative and directive. I further distinguished a sixth type, named metacom-municative. This type covers metacomments related to the text and

comments on the disposition of the text. Under each of the other main types of illocutions a set of subcategories was distinguished.

Informative: Describe

Assume

Explicative: Explain

Clarify

Compare

Conclude

Describe and explain Describe and clarify

Expressive: Express involvement

Question, doubt

Disagree

Agree

Criticize negatively

Argumentative: Maintain, claim

Directive: Recommend

Require

Prohibit

Permit

Request

Metacommunicative: Make metacommunicative comments Indicate text disposition

Cite

Each macrosyntagm, or clause, of a text is categorized in relation to illocution. This categorization is based on the main verb of the clause, and in ambiguous cases also on surrounding adverbials.

3.2.2.2 Macro analysis: goal-directed structure

The second step of the pragmatic analysis is directed towards the macro level. Inspired by scholars who posited the action and goal-directed structure of communication (e.g. Rossipal, 1978), I developed a method

by which the subsidiary function of the text parts can be categorized in relation to the structure of the text as a whole. Written texts are seen as communicative events in which an author (or authors) addresses a reader (or readers) with an action-directed purpose. The author uses the text to get a message through to his or her readers, to make them act or think in a desired way. The author is considered to have a main purpose with his text, and this main purpose can be traced to one or more parts of the text.

The method for pragmatic analysis at macro level tries to grasp the subsidiary function of the text constituents in the structure of the text as a whole. In this analysis of pragmatic content, the smaller elements of the text are categorized in terms of their relationship to the main purpose, in terms of their role within the purpose structure of the text. A distinction is made between goal information and auxiliary information as shown below.

Goal information and auxiliary information

Categories Subcategories

Goal information Text goal

Action goal

Auxiliary information aiming to secure reader’s

–cooperation Marking of author’s authority –Sender

–Expert –Source

Indication of addressee Indication of relevance of

the message

–comprehension Definition Categorization Summary Illustration –conviction Example Proof

–competence to act Description of action

If relevant, the macrosyntagm, or clause, has been assigned to one or more of the categories and subcategories related to goal and auxiliary information. This means that some macrosyntagms are not assigned to any of these categories.