Speech acts and conversational maxims

[@kokoskowapanienka]

I wish my teachers explained linguistic in such a clear way.

[@deadman746]

Yours are the best YT lectures on cognitive linguistics are the best I've encountered. I view pragmatics, in the sense of Wilson's semiotics from 1939, as more basic than semantics with the latter being an idealized version of the former and not always appropriate. It explains the diachronic early evolution of language from speech acts, or Wittgenstein's language games, using animal noises. It also explains how it is easy to come up with meanings not mentioned in dictionaries. Semantics is too tightly bound to the act of defining, which is its own frame with its own conventions that often get in the way

[@FinnDavid]

I think you just saved me from failing my linguistics exam. Thank you very much. You´re doing an amazing job!

[@MartinHilpert]

Thanks for watching and good luck with your exam!

[@zoejones1816]

This is a great explanation of pragmatics. PS - the airport employee voice was hilarious

[@princerickyvarona]

This explanation of speech acts and the conversational maxims is so clear. Thank you sir.

[@alecwang9417]

You are such a genius teacher! I like you!Keep making videos!

[@baselzain5886]

That video really helped me to understand pragmatics, especially the speech acts better. Thank you!

[@gr1nas]

the clearest explanation on KZbin! Thanks

[@jakubskurek1787]

Thanks for the clear and coherent presentation of the discussed concepts.

[@demiroezden]

Das Video ist sehr hilfreich. Ich hoffe, dass ich die Pragmatik-Klausur bestehen werde. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE VIDEO!!!

[@alinabucur1934]

That was extremely helpful! I'm having an examination on pragmatics tomorrow so I will certainly use some of the information shown in this video. P.S. Those were really funny examples, I wish all my teachers would use them

[@MartinHilpert]

Alina Zagoneanu Thanks, and good luck!

[@der.shadia9322]

@Alina Bucur are you a linguistics student?

[@ainny2293]

Thank u so much ! this video is very useful for me as if i'm attending pragmatics' revision class. your explanation is very simple but clear :) may god bless u, mr. hilpert.

[@ananoto1460]

So useful information for me, unfortunately i bump into your videos very late for my exam, they are so useful!!!!! wish to have found these explanations before

[@karlalandaeta8511]

This video was very helpful ! I thought at first it was too long! But you couldn't respect the maxim of quantity and relevance any better! haha! =) Things are clearer to me now. Thank you very much!

[@MartinHilpert]

Touché ;)

[@davidzhu5133]

Mark, I love you: you are the best English linguistics professor in the world! Hope to see more of your videos in the future. Love you ! David

[@MartinHilpert]

I'm flattered, thank you!

[@ramongomes85]

Very objective and kind of funny. Loved it! Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the world!

[@fatmaacar1730]

ı wısh you were my teacher, you are so good at it! Finally, ı understood this subject.

[@rosalindrosenfeld1365]

Thank you! Visual explanations are easier than reading text. Now I can finish my final course in my Masters. Btw, can you do a video on Goffman's communication constraints? It will help for those uni students doing Discourse Analysis.

[@Petrakis81]

I always find your videos very useful! I couldn't believe it when you used Viz to explain Indirect Speech Acts, great stuff!!!

[@dana23299]

Thank you so much! This was EXTREMELY helpful!!

[@tsheringsamdrup2522]

Thoroughly enjoyed the lecture. Thank you

[@mariahadjar6885]

Thanks a lot .I follow you from Algeria. you are really a good teacher .

[@MartinHilpert]

Many thanks, Maria!

[@norahtubagus1962]

wow i understand each word you say, thank you

[@vineetasaluja2531]

awesome way of explanation.

[@vineetasaluja2531]

Hi, where can i have an access to rest of your lectures sir?

[@danishfarman1346]

Really very helpful data.. will you please like to help us in understanding the difference of violation and flouting of maxims and presupposition and entailment... looking forward to it...

[@mariaangraeni408]

Clear explanation. Thank you!

[@isalongoni]

Hi Prof., I would like to thank you first of all, you helped me so much preparing my exam in pragmatics that I'm gonna ask you if perhaps there is a video on leech's politeness maxims and CDA too. it would be fantastic. I really appreciate your work. isabella

[@isalongoni]

exam done. thks again

[@reguigradhia5303]

Thank you You really save me🌼🌼🌼

[@NapatidaP]

Thanks, it's really good !!

[@563891nr]

Thank u very much indeed

[@نور-ت6د8ن]

THIS VEDIEO IS VERY USEFUL.THANK YOU SIR

[@bumble2able]

A massive thank you !!!

[@jiangwei7117]

Thanks for the information!

[@alexe610]

Dear pr. , at 1:50 can we replace speaker's thought and hearer's thought by signifier and signified respectively? Thank you very much.

[@thestagbeetle888]

How about Rogatives? Why did I find different options of Austin's theory? First, I found out that there are 5 main categories, then I found there are 6 (+rogatives), and now I am finding out that there are 6 (+verdictives). Could someone enlight me ?

[@Ramzi_Ghanmi]

His full name is Herbert Paul Grice.

[@anamariatomasevic269]

Hi! I have a question, for the example *A: "Have you done the reading for your seminar? B: I intended to." Saeed says that we imply the answer is no, because if the answer was yes, the person would violate the maxim of quantity. Is it because then the person wouldn't give enough information(talks about the intention, not about the if he's done it). According to him, there's no violation of the maxim?

[@MartinHilpert]

Yes, that's right. The maxim of quantity states that speakers should be as informative as possible. The response "I intended to" is only in line with that maxim if it is meant as "I intended to, but finally there was no time". The other way around, if you actually wanted to communicate "Yes I did", saying "I intended to" would be less than fully informative, and thus in conflict with the maxim of quantity.

[@anamariatomasevic269]

@@MartinHilpert can't believe you replied, thank you!

[@lateefalqasab6864]

Great .

[@bassmarabia1736]

thank you for this explanation . in fact Im facing some troubles in making distinction between flouting and violaton . i want to analyse an old play based on Grice four maxims . i want some help plllllz

[@richardsnow1753]

Bassma Rabia We talk about 'flouting' of a certain maxim when the purpose of the break with the norm is known to the hearer (e.g.,I like the linguistics class) . On the other hand, 'violation' happens when the reason behind the breach of the maxim is not known to the hearer.

[@Leipzigist]

Thank you for sharing this video, Martin. I have to sit a linguistics exam and your video has helped me assimilate as well as reinforce concepts. I have, however, one question to ask regarding the grouping of speech acts. 'Verdictives' is a new term for me. I had studied 'rogatives' as proposed by Leech. Is there more than one way of organising speech acts?

[@MartinHilpert]

+Leipzigist Yes, there are several typologies with slightly different categories. Pick the one that's most useful for your exam! ;)

[@Leipzigist]

oh thank you very much, Martin :) I'll have a look at it.

[@maxdrenthan780]

"poor but honest" i believe more insults rich than insults poor

[@Sakura-j6p]

min 11:18 you said that in the example "A republic was declared and the king had a heart attack" is a causal relationship... isn't it a causal relationship in the previous example as well "The king has a heart attack and a republic was declared"? they declared republic because the king had died.

[@MartinHilpert]

Sure, you could say that. The main point is that the meanings of the two sentences would still be different.

[@ngominh259]

May I ask: "I think we should thank you." Is that representative or expressive?

[@guitarerooo]

probably depends on the context^^

[@richardsnow1753]

Hoàng Minh Ngô Vũ It is representative because you are stating a supposed fact .

[@a.a.4887]

Hello, thank you very much for these videos can you please help me? If we have a sentence like "Drinking too much can cause mental retardation" and we have to draw a structure tree of this sentence what would we write in the brunch that points toward "Drinking" is just N or something else? S / NP / N / Drinking please help me with this because I'm not sure about the ing form Thanks a lot

[@kestinehogayre6192]

11:25

[@englishwithtjmalik1383]

good

[@edsonarmandoramirezreynoso9408]

Like if Martin Hilpert help you to understand this topic

[@miligonzalez1517]

you are handsome

[@shadi489]

every thing i say or think is wrong ------------i am missunderstood------ why ?

[@dlon8899]

Everything you say or think is right....because you are missoverstood