Chapter 2 positions ritual in the field of pragmatics. The chapter first provides an overview of previous pragmatic research on ritual and discusses why Goffman’s term ‘interaction ritual’ is particularly useful to describe what ritual is from the pragmatician’s point of view. The chapter then considers why ritual offers a powerful perspective through which one can approach and interpret language use across different linguacultures and context types. It is also shown that an analytic model based on ritual provides a different and often more accurate view of many instances of conventionalised language use than the oft-used politeness paradigm. Finally, the chapter defines the key pragmatic features of ritual as elements of a pragmatic approach to ritual and language. Interpreting ritual through this cluster of pragmatic features allows the researcher to venture beyond any single working definition.

Chapters 10 and 11 provide a solution for the study of interactionally complex ritual phenomena, by systematically breaking them down into replicable pragmatic units of analysis. The complexity of a ritual phenomenon can either mean that a phenomenon is too broad to be discussed as a single ritual, i.e., it represents a form of ritual behaviour which spans across many different ritual contexts, or it represents a particular context and related ritual frame which triggers ritual behaviour but cannot be subsumed under a single ritual heading from the pragmatician’s point of view. Chapter 11 focuses on the second type of difficulty: it proposes a discourse-analytic approach through which seemingly ad hoc and erratic interactional ritual behaviour in a single complex ritual frame can be studied in a replicable way. As a case study, the chapter will examine ritual bargaining in Chinese markets. While bargaining is a ritual in the popular sense of the word, it is problematic from the pragmatician’s point of view to refer to bargaining as a ritual, without considering whether and how it manifests itself in recurrent patterns of ritual language use.

Chapter 3 discusses the ways in which the ritual perspective can help the researcher to systematically describe seemingly ad hoc interactional events. Ritual aggression can be a challenging phenomenon to study for two reasons. Firstly, in-group ritual aggression often appears to be ‘violent’ and, more importantly, ‘unreasonable’ for group outsiders. For instance, ritual cursing is normative for certain ethnic groups but may sound menacing for members of other groups, often leading to racist stereotypes and prejudices. A clear advantage of the ritual perspective is that it allows the researcher to describe exactly the pragmatic conventions of such rituals in a rigorous and replicable way, and on a par with rites of civility. Secondly, other less ‘exotic’ aggressive interaction rituals also often manifest themselves in forms that one may describe as ‘violent’ and ‘unreasonable’. The ritual perspective also helps the scholar to capture the pragmatic conventions and dynamics of these social rituals, which are the focus of Chapter 3. As a case study the chapter examines language use before, during and after a ‘grudge match’ in a Mixed Martial Arts event.

Chapter 6 investigates the ritual phenomenon of (self-)display. Any instance of ritual language use implies a sense of displaying: the participants of a ritual tend to display their awareness of the rights and obligations and related conventions holding for the context which necessitates the given ritual. In certain ritual scenarios, especially if a ritual is competitive, display transforms into self-display, i.e., through following – and often excessively over-doing – the pragmatic conventions of the ritual one may as much display one’s awareness of these conventions. Chapter 6 considers how different degrees of self-displaying behaviour can be distinguished from one another. As a case study, I investigate a corpus of historical Chinese letters written by an epistolary expert Gong Weizhai to various recipients, including both ‘ordinary’ recipients such as patrons, family members, lovers, and so on, and fellow epistolary expert friends representing ‘professional’ recipients. With this latter audience, Gong engaged in a playful self-displaying competition as to who can be ‘more’ intricately deferential and humorous to the other.

Chapter 8 considers the relationship between expressions, the smallest unit of pragmatic analysis, and ritual. The chapter will provide a bottom–up, corpus-based and replicable approach through which expressions associated with structurally or functionally ritual speech acts are used to indicate awareness of the different ritual frame. Structurally ritual speech acts include speech acts like Greet and Leave-Take which occur in ritual parts of an interaction, while functionally ritual speech acts encompass speech acts like Request and Apologise which tend to be realised in a ritual way in many contexts. The chapter points out that the relationship between expressions and interaction ritual can be best captured through a contrastive pragmatic lens because the contrastive view allows the researcher to consider how strongly a pragmatically important expression tends to indicate a functionally or structurally ritual speech act when pitted against a comparable expression in another – preferably typologically distant – linguaculture. The chapter provides a case study of Chinese and English expressions associated with the ritually performed speech act Apologise as a case study.

Chapters 10 and 11 provide a solution for the study of interactionally complex ritual phenomena, by systematically breaking them down into replicable pragmatic units of analysis. The complexity of a ritual phenomenon can either mean that a phenomenon is too broad to be discussed as a single ritual, i.e., it represents a form of ritual behaviour which spans across many different ritual contexts, or it represents a particular context and related ritual frame which triggers ritual behaviour but cannot be subsumed under a single ritual heading from the pragmatician’s point of view. Chapter 10 focuses on the first of these cases: it explores the ritual phenomenon of self-denigration in Chinese. Self-denigration occurs in many different contexts of Chinese ritual practices and ceremonies, and if one attempts to describe its pragmatic features by relying on data drawn from a single context one unavoidably risks oversimplifying it. Rather, in the study of such a ritual phenomenon one should consider how it is used in different interpersonal scenarios with varying power and intimacy and in different phases of an interaction.

Chapter 7 discusses liminality from a pragmatic point of view. All interactionally complex rituals take the participants through a threshold to some degree, in that the rights and obligations and related conventions of pragmatic behaviour holding for rituals tend to differ from their counterparts in ‘ordinary’ life. Yet, it is relevant to study fully-fledged liminal rituals with a sense of irreversibility. For example, ritual public apologies are liminal in the fully-fledged sense because the person who realises such ritual apologies passes a threshold with no return. Liminal rituals come together with strong metapragmatic awareness: if the moral order and the related frame of the ritual are violated, both the participants and the observers tend to become alerted and engage in intensive metapragmatic reflections. Chapter 7 will present a case study focusing on the liminal rite of workplace dismissal. Such dismissals represent typical liminal rituals in the very sense of the word: they change the life of the recipient and as such they are very meaningful and irreversible. Because of this, perceived ‘errors’ in the realisation of this ritual tends to trigger particularly intensive metapragmatic reflections and evaluations.

In this chapter, we first introduce the questions of when and how children start using connectives and discourse relations during their first years of life. We will see more specifically that mastering the complex form-function mappings involved in the understanding of many connectives is a complex task for young children. In addition, we will present research investigating school-age children’s comprehension of connectives, and show that it is only around the end of their primary school years that they fully understand frequent connectives. We will explore the causes of these difficulties, and discuss the differences between various connectives and discourse relations. We will then move on to other studies analyzing the way older children understand connectives, and see that their acquisition is not fully in place after primary school years, as teenagers keep developing their competence with connectives. Finally, we will briefly discuss the acquisition of connectives and discourse relations by children suffering from linguistic or cognitive impairments such as SLI and autism.

In this chapter, we discuss the way people read, remember and understand discourse, depending on the type of relations that link discourse segments together. We also illustrate the role of connectives and other discourse signals as elements guiding readers’ interpretation. Throughout the chapter, we review empirical evidence from experiments that involve various methodologies such as offline comprehension tasks, self-paced reading, eye-tracking and event related potentials. One of the major findings is that not all relations are processed and remembered in the same way. It seems that causal relations play a special role for creating coherence in discourse, as they are processed more quickly and remembered better. Conversely, because they are highly expected, causal relations benefit less from the presence of connectives compared to discontinuous relations like concession and confirmation. Finally, research shows that in their native language, speakers are able to take advantage of all sorts of connectives for discourse processing, even those restricted to the written mode, and those that are ambiguous.

In this chapter, we first present the extent of cross-linguistic differences in the uses of discourse connectives and relations, and discuss their implications for theories of discourse. We make a distinction between discourse relations, that seem to exist in all languages and their mapping onto specific connectives that is most of the time language-specific. We also present the kind of data that can be used to perform contrastive studies, emphasizing their advantages and limitations. Connectives are also used quite differently across different genres within the same language. These differences are particularly evident between spoken and written genres. We present the variations linked to genres in this chapter, and underline the necessity to develop more cross-linguistic studies that are also varied in terms of genres. Results from corpus studies comparing languages or genres have increasingly been used as input for experimental research. We discuss in particular how observations about connective usage across genres has been important for studies analyzing discourse processing, as well as first and second language acquisition

The take-away message from this book is quite simple: studying connectives and discourse relations matters because they represent cornerstone elements of discourse coherence. Throughout the book, our aim has been to illustrate the wide variety of research produced over the past decades on these two central notions. We have seen that although both concepts are intrinsically related, they cannot be entirely merged. Discourse relations can be conveyed in the absence of connectives through simple juxtaposition, and connectives can in many cases be used to convey more than one discourse relation depending on context.