Formulaic language in pragmatics research

Formulaic language (pre-patterned speech) has not received much attention within any subfield of pragmatics. Certain groups of formulas such as idioms, phrasal verbs and others have been discussed in figurative language research. But with few exceptions (Coulmas 1981; Overstreet and Yule 2001; Wray 2002; Van Lancker-Sidtis 2003, 2004; Kecskes 2000, 2003) not much has been written about formulaic language in pragmatics. Why is it that pragmaticists almost ignore this topic although our everyday conversation is full of formulaic expressions? I can think of two reasons: – ‘What is said’ is not well defined for formulaic utterances.

In the Gricean paradigm listeners determine “what is said” according to one set of principles or procedures, and they work out (calculate) what is implicated according to another. Implicatures are based on “what is said”, the combinatorial meaning of the expression. But listeners often have to calculate certain parts of “what is said” too. This somewhat contradicts the basic assumption of major pragmatic theories (neo-Gricean approach, relevance theory) according to which “what is said” is usually well defined for every type of utterance. If it weren’t we would have no basis for working out implicatures. However, in formulaic language there are many counter-examples, especially in phrasal utterances.

Clark (1996) argued that when you tell a bartender: Two pints of Guinness, it is unclear what you are saying. Are you saying in Grice’s sense I’d like or I’ll have or Get me or Would you get me or I’d like you to get me a glass of beer? There is no way in principle of selecting among these candidates. Whatever you are doing, you do not appear to be saying that you are ordering beer, and yet you cannot be implicating it either because you cannot cancel the order – it makes no sense to say Two pints of Guinness, but I’m not ordering two pints of Guinness.

“What is said” simply is not well defined for phrasal utterances. (In relevance theory Carston (2005) has also questioned the utility of the concept “what is said”, which is sometimes identified with the “explicature”, which is in large part contextually determined.)

Further example: To the cashier in a store: “Are you open?”

Linguistic units only prompt meaning construction.

The leading thought in present day linguistic research on meaning is that linguistic stimuli are just a guide in the performing of sophisticated inferences about each other’s states of minds and intentions. Linguistic units only prompt meaning construction. Formulaic expressions do not fit very well into this line of thinking because they usually have fixed meanings. They are like frozen implicatures. The modular view rarely works with fixed expressions. When situation-bound utterances such as Nice meeting you; You’re all set; How do you do? are used, there is usually just one way to understand their situational function. (To be continued in Unit 2-22)

 

EXPLICATION OF KEY FACTS AND IDEAS GIVEN IN THE TEXT, USING FORMULAIC LANGUAGE FOR ABSTRACT, SUMMARY AND CRITIQUE WRITING

 

Instruction: There is no single satisfactory definition of formulaic language, and researchers differ in what they consider formulaic. Potentially, parts of formulaic language are: idioms, collocations, turns of phrase, preferred ways of saying things, routines, set phrases, rhymes and songs, prayers, proverbs (Wray, 2002).

We may notice formulaic language in: ritualised events, structured events such as weather forecasts, the language of very young children, the materials in foreign language textbooks, especially for beginners, and in phrasebooks. In addition, the absence of formulaic language may be what marks out competent language learners as non-native speakers.

A formulaic sequence is: a sequence, continuous or discontinuous, of words or other elements, which is, or appears to be, prefabricated: that is, stored and retrieved whole from memory at the time of use, rather than being subject to generation or analysis by the language grammar (Wray, 2002).

Use samples of formulaic language given below for abstract, summary and critique writing.