Pragmatics is a field concerned with the study of the use of language in context. In its early establishment phase, scholars engaged in an intensive period of theory building in a search for the universal underpinnings of language use in now classic accounts of speaker meaning (Grice Reference Grice1957), speech acts (Austin Reference Austin1962) and politeness (Brown & Levinson Reference Brown, Levinson and Goody1978). Since the late 1980s, however, pragmatics as a field has witnessed a broadly empirical turn in which greater emphasis has been placed on examining the use of a much broader range of languages and cultures beyond English, across a much more diverse range of contexts beyond co-present, spoken interaction. The rapid increase in studies of language use in a multitude of different contexts has arguably led, in turn, to a proliferation of theories and subfields in pragmatics.
In this book, Rong Chen argues that without a unifying theory of pragmatics we are in danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees. The ‘motivation model of pragmatics’ is proposed as a means of seeing the ‘bigger picture’ in pragmatics. The central thesis is that since language is invariably used to do things, and all human actions are motivated actions, a theory of motivation can provide pragmatics with a bird’s-eye view of what underpins the use of language across all contexts. Chen contends that we need to place greater premium on seeking out underlying commonalities or universals in language use. It is this search that provided much of the initial theoretical impetus for the formation of the field, and if we do not return to these roots, so he argues, we are indeed losing sight of the bigger picture.
As Chen quite rightly points out, even the most rigorous empirical analysis in pragmatics ultimately offers little beyond description for the sake of description if it does not also have a clear theoretical import. Without theory we cannot make sense of the diverse range of findings about language use that have been generated to date, nor can we make generalisations beyond the particulars of individual events, or engage in predictions about how language is put to use to do things in the world in ways that are readily recognisable to others. The question raised in this book, then, is whether the motivation model of pragmatics does indeed provide a unifying account of language use that is both plausible and coherent, as well as offering sufficient theoretical purchase to justify its claim to be a unifying theory.
The book begins in chapter 1, ‘Pragmatics then and now’ (pp. 1–21), with a concise overview of theoretical developments in pragmatics. Chen divides these developments into two main stages. The first stage was one of theory building in which the foundations of pragmatics as a discipline were laid. It was in this period that the use of language was convincingly argued to be a legitimate and important object of research in its own right, pushing back against the overwhelming emphasis placed on syntax and semantics in linguistics up until that point. Two foundational insights that emerged in the theory building phase were that language is ultimately a vehicle for action (Austin Reference Austin1962), and that speaker meanings depend on inferences about intentions in context (Grice Reference Grice1957). He characterises the second stage of pragmatics as one of diversification, both with respect to the range of theories that have been developed – either to expand on or replace those classic theories – as well as with respect to the set of phenomena that are being analysed. He also notes the particularly important role that (im)politeness has played in those developments, and the range of languages in which such phenomena are now being studied. However, he also claims that the second stage has been somewhat marred, on the one hand, by misguided attacks on classic first-stage theories in pragmatics that have inadvertently thrown the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, and, on the other, by a significant over-emphasis on identifying differences in the dynamic, moment-to-moment unfolding of social interaction at the expense of uncovering recurrent and generalisable dimensions of language use.
Chen then presents, in chapter 2, ‘A motivation model of pragmatics (MMP)’ (pp. 22–41), his proposed solution to this perceived weakness in pragmatics. The central claim made in this chapter is that ‘language use can be adequately studied by looking at the motivations behind it’ (p. 22). This is an ambitious claim, as Chen himself acknowledges. However, it builds, in large part, on long-standing distinctions that are not in themselves new, which confers some degree of prima facie plausibility on these claims. Drawing on Brown & Yule’s (Reference Brown and Yule1983) distinction between transactional (i.e. informational) and interactional (i.e. interpersonal) functions of language, for instance, he claims the first-level motivations underpinning language use are either ‘transactional’ or ‘interactional’ in nature. According to Chen, the transactional motivation for language use can then be subdivided into two further second-level motivations, ‘clarity’ (i.e. accuracy) and ‘effectiveness’ (i.e. quality) of information transfer, which echoes classic philosophical distinctions that can be traced back to Aristotle. The interactional motivation for language use, in contrast, is subdivided into a concern for creating, maintaining or enhancing the ‘public image of other’ (usually hearer) or the ‘public image of self’ (usually speaker), thereby putting the classic self–other distinction together with the venerable notion of ‘face’, which he terms ‘public image’ here in order to make it clear that this is intended as an etic, culture-general theory of language use.
As it is in this chapter that Chen lays out the key theoretical premises of the motivation model of pragmatics, with applications and exemplifications of the theory then being illustrated in the remaining substantive chapters of the book, this chapter is essential reading. However, the reader may be left wondering, perhaps, whether a book that aims to ‘provide a unified theory of pragmatics’ can do justice to such a proposal within the confines of a single chapter. Close reading suggests that further theoretical discussion and elaboration may have been warranted. For instance, although reference is made to classic typologies from psychology of different types of motivation, a theoretical definition of motivation itself is not provided. Thus while Chen claims that motivation is distinct from traditional notions in pragmatics, such as ‘functions’, ‘goals’ or ‘intentions’, the scope of motivation in MMP is left unclear, and so it is difficult to assess such claims except in broadly intuitive terms. This stands in sharp relief to the careful theoretical definitions to be found in the classic first-stage theories of pragmatics the book claims to be defending. This is not to say such distinctions cannot be convincingly made, but it is notable that a book that is premised on the claim that it is providing a theoretical model of pragmatics that can coherently account for ‘the myriad findings in pragmatics’ (p. 1) does not provide a theoretical definition or construct of motivation itself.
In the following six chapters of the book, Chen exemplifies how MMP can be applied to different pragmatic phenomena, ranging from (im)politeness and speech acts through to discourse structure and non-literal uses of language. Through these chapters, Chen illustrates how MMP can lend new insights and generate new ways of looking at classic areas of interest in pragmatics.
In chapter 3, ‘MMP and (im)politeness’ (pp. 42–73), building on the long-recognised distinctions between politeness and impoliteness, alongside other and self, Chen proposes that there are four kinds of (im)politeness: other-politeness, self-politeness, other-impoliteness and self-impoliteness. This four-way typology of (im)politeness leads to some intriguing claims. On the one hand, he quite rightly observes that while other-politeness and other-impoliteness have received the bulk of attention by researchers in pragmatics, there has been little research about self-politeness, with the notable exception of previous work by Chen (Reference Chen2001) himself, and self-impoliteness remains yet to be explored at all. On the other hand, it also leads to the claim that mock impoliteness can be characterised as a form of self-politeness (i.e. benefiting self-face but not hurting other-face). The latter, however, is perhaps an overly reductive claim though, as one raison d’être of mock impoliteness is that it can, and sometimes does indeed hurt the face of other. If that were not the case, it would hardly be effective in accomplishing the multitude of functions to which it has been observed to give rise, including, in some cases at least, implicitly criticising other. Chen then discusses recent studies focusing on the metapragmatics of (im)politeness and contends that ‘evaluation studies do not serve a much greater purpose than description’ (p. 71), and so ‘the findings have not proven particularly useful’ (p. 72). Of course, what one considers useful depends very much on the research questions one is asking, and the overall aims or agenda of one’s research programme. If one is attempting to explain why people from different cultural backgrounds may evaluate the same speech act in quite different ways, for instance, one clearly needs a more nuanced theoretical apparatus than what a distinction between politeness and impoliteness or self and other might be able to provide.
A similar tendency can be observed in the chapters that follow. Fresh insights and intriguing new questions are raised, but one is left with a distinct sense that there is much that could – and perhaps should – be said about each of the phenomena being discussed. In chapter 4, ‘MMP and cross-/intercultural variation’ (pp. 73–117), for instance, Chen first examines compliments and compliment responses through a comparative lens to illustrate how MMP can be applied in the context of cross-cultural pragmatics. The analyses of the way in which compliment responses are subject to competing motivations is compelling, echoing earlier work by Pomerantz (Reference Pomerantz and Schenkein1978) on cross-cutting preferences in interesting ways, albeit within a different epistemological framework. However, the subsequent generalisations made about the ways in which speakers of different languages typically respond to compliments is perhaps more problematic, at least on methodological grounds, as we cannot be sure the same things are really being compared across these studies without careful matching of contexts to rule out other confounding factors. The chapter then moves to consider the so-called ‘East–West divide’ and makes broad generalisations about each. However, while prior studies along those lines are discussed (and critiqued), and examples introduced to exemplify claims, there is no empirical evidence offered to support the predictions based on MMP made about similarities and differences between East and West. They are similarly stated as predictions. This is perhaps unsurprising as East and West are arguably ideological constructs, and so their utility as a basis for sound comparative research in pragmatics is questionable.
The focus on compliment responses continues in chapter 5, ‘MMP and diachronic pragmatics’ (pp. 118–46), in which Chen reports on cross-generational studies that are suggestive of diachronic changes in the distribution of different types of compliment responses over time, reflecting broader cultural changes. He then moves to consider changes observed in the ways in which hosts offer more food to guests after the latter have indicated they have finished eating over time. Once again these changes are argued to be related to broad cultural shifts that can be described with respect to shifts in underlying motivations.
In chapter 6, ‘MMP and discourse’ (pp. 147–214), which follows, the lens widens beyond analyses of specific speech acts to encompass discourse structures more broadly. Perhaps not surprisingly given that the distinction between clarity and effectiveness originated in discourse analysis, MMP proves useful in highlighting the interplay of these, alongside transactional versus interactional motivations, in written discourse genres. It is less clear, however, that MMP is as effective in capturing what drives interactional regularities in the case of conversational structure, such as pre-sequences, preference organisation and discourse markers. It is suggested, for instance, that pre-sequences can be explained with reference to the motivation for clarity. However, this is somewhat at odds with findings in conversation analysis that different types of pre-sequences are used for different purposes across different social interactions. A pre-announcement is often designed to indicate that the speaker is likely going to subsequently claim the floor for an extended period of time, as well as to make a claim of newsworthiness, while a pre-arrangement is often designed to avoid the threats to self and other’s face that arise if an invitation is refused. To boil this down to a motivation for clarity does not really capture such nuances. Situating pragmatic phenomena within a broader theoretical framework is clearly a worthwhile endeavour. However, it should not be at the expense of providing a coherent and meaningful account of the phenomena in question.
The final two chapters of the book shift to consider various different kinds of figures of speech. In chapter 7, ‘MMP and metaphor’ (pp. 215–42), Chen mounts the argument that MMP can be fruitfully applied to explain the motivations of speakers for using metaphors (as opposed to speaking more plainly, for instance). It is proposed that metaphors may be used to fulfil one or more of the second-level motivations outlined in chapter 2. The focus then shifts in chapter 8, ‘MMP and the non-literal’ (pp. 243–82), to other classic figures of speech, such as irony and parody. Once again, Chen aims to demonstrate how a range of different types of non-literal speech can be classified as fulfilling one or more of the motivations outlined in MMP. Although MMP tells us little about the mechanisms by which different figures of speech give rise to various transactional or interactional effects, in encouraging researchers to place greater focus on the motivations for using non-literal speech, it may make comparisons across studies easier by avoiding the problems that can arise when generating different typologies of the functions of metaphor, irony and so on. Indeed, it becomes clear across these two chapters that MMP offers a potentially useful tertium comparationis for researchers examining different forms of non-literal speech, and it is in that sense that it perhaps succeeds best in meeting its stated aim of providing a unifying framework for pragmatics. However, providing a clear touchstone for comparing the motivations for different pragmatic phenomena is one thing. Developing a unifying framework that is coherent and meaningful is another.
Is pragmatics a field in need of a unifying theory? Perhaps. There is no doubt that the emphasis placed on studying and explaining diversity and difference over the past couple of decades has led to a proliferation of theories in pragmatics about every kind of language use imaginable. Does the motivation model of pragmatics (MMP) provide just such a theory? The answer here is perhaps a little more uncertain. Paying greater attention to the underlying motivations as to why we use language in particular ways in particular contexts certainly offers a promising rich new vein of research. There is no doubt that human action is almost always motivated in some shape or form, and there are clearly some motivations that are universally shared by us all. However, does explaining the use of language in context through a small set of broadly formulated motivations provide us with sufficient theoretical purchase to explain not only shared commonalities in language use, but also the variation we can invariably observe in how people produce and interpret language across different contexts? It strikes me that MMP is perhaps best suited to accomplishing the former. However, a unified theory of pragmatics must do both.
As Rong Chen adroitly observes in this remarkably compelling bird’s-eye view of theoretical developments in pragmatics over the past fifty years, becoming overly focused on uncovering differences in pragmatics has led to a proliferation of empirical studies where the theoretical import of those studies can sometimes be unclear. There is also an unfortunate tendency for some researchers to misinterpret or even misrepresent classic theories in pragmatics, or to reject those theories simply because they are perceived to be ‘old’ (Culpeper & Haugh Reference Culpeper, Haugh, Haugh, Kadar and Terkourafi2021: 324). Chen provides a spirited defence of these foundational theories in pragmatics, reminding us to avoid such traps, and astutely demonstrates how one can theorise in ways that expand on as well as complement these classic theories.
Chen also reminds us that the search for pragmatic universals has not been given due attention in pragmatics as of late. He thus exhorts researchers in pragmatics to not only continue expanding its empirical base through examining different phenomena across different languages and contexts, but to also explicitly draw on these findings in reinvigorating the search for underlying commonalities or universals in language use. The motivation model of pragmatics (MMP) also generates intriguing new questions for researchers in pragmatics, as well as providing ways of rethinking classic questions that have long dogged the field. For those reasons, and more, while there is perhaps more work to be done to further refine and elaborate on the theoretical claims being advanced in this book, this thought-provoking volume is nevertheless most definitely well worth reading.
