This chapter is basically about pragmatics in written texts, literary works. Pragmatics research is generally regarded as studies on the most common human activity, conversations, and in this chapter, it comes to the phenomenon of literacy, the production and consumption of written texts. The study of literary texts from the pragmatic point of view may raise the question: how does literature related to pragmatics? In this chapter, the author expresses his understanding on the following: the roles of author and reader, the difference between author and narrator, some textual mechanisms and reading as a pragmatic act.

1.        The roles of author and reader

Literary works reading is a process of both production and consumption: the author creates the works and his readers consume it. Reading is a collaborative activity, taking place between author and reader; reading is an innovative process of active recreation, not just the passive, preset and predetermined use of literary works. During this process, reader, as an active collaborator, is a major player in the literary game. His influence on the whole process is not just the acquisition of a text and the assimilation through the visual and psychological processes that we generally relate with reading. The reader, during reading, enters the universe created by the author, and become an actor rather than a mere spectator. And by entering the process, the reader changes the play: what he reads is his own co-operation along with the author. The author depends on the reader as a presupposition fro his activity and the reader is dependent on the author for guidance in the world of fiction. Mey calls this process as a dialectic process. The pragmatic study of literary activity focus on the features that characterizes this process of literary production. In pragmatics, the text is an author-originated and author-guided and at the same time reader-oriented and reader-activated process of wording.

2.        The difference between author and narrator

Author and narrator are quite different. Strictly speaking, the author creates the narrator. In a sense, the narrator always is a character in the story, and explicitly or implicitly manifests himself on the scene. But he cannot be held responsible for the actions and opinions of the other characters and the author cannot be identified with the actions and opinions of the characters too. It is important for a reader to realize that the narrator is not identical with the author or any other character. Mey thinks that, the pragmatics of authorship vs. narratorship is of the utmost importance for the successful cooperation between the users involved tin the production and consumption of the literary work.

3.        Some textual mechanisms

In this part, the author expresses his opinions on some textual mechanisms: reference, tense and discourse mechanisms.

Reference. The way we have learnt to use reference in our language is an indispensable help in our understanding of texts. However it is never an absolute guarantee of a particular understanding. In fact, the textual works is pragmatically dependent on the established linguistic reference.

Tense. Tense is a means of situating an utterance in time relevance to a user. The author here analyzes tense in a text in terms of a system consist of speech time (ST), event time (ET) and reference time (RT).

Discourse. A text is a typical social product created by the users in an environment of socially determined conditions and discourse is frequent in all textual interpretation. Mey regards reading as a gamble: we trust the author to deliver a story that may or may not interest us. On the other hand, the discourse aspect of a text is not just a passive one. On the contrary, the success of the text depends on the readers’ active collaboration in creating the textual universe. During the reader’s activation of the text, the writher has to establish a universe of discourse that the reader is willing to accept.

4. Voice and voicing

Voices have to be understood in an interactive process of ongoing collaboration between all the partied involved: readers, authors and characters. It is the contextual cooperation among these that the process of voicing, the process by which literary voices are created, presupposes and represents.

5.Reading is a pragmatic act

Successful reading depends on the readers’ willingness to accept their parts in the text work, on their ability to take their proper seats in the fictional theater. The readers’ ability to do this depends to a great extent on an author’s ability to create this theater, to give the readers a possibility to assume their stance in the fictional space. It is the setting-up of the readers that the pragmatic character of the act of reading becomes important.

The linguistic competence of a reader is commonly understood as comprising the ability to assign the correct reference to textual elements such as pronouns, deitics.

The pragmatic act of reading implies an open-ended invitation to the reader to join the author in the co-creation of the story, by filling holes that text leave open.

In reading, as in other pragmatic acting, it is the general contextual conditions and presuppositions that make any understanding possible.

The chapter examines one particular instance of pragmatic acting, namely, as it is realized in the world of writing and studied in literary pragmatics.

Firstly, Mey explains two relationships: author and reader, author and narrator. How literature relates to pragmatics has to be seen from the angle of the user. Reading is a collaborative activity, taking place between author and reader: reading is an innovative process of active re-creation. What the reader reads is his or her own co-production along with the author. Mey calls this interaction a dialectic process, inasmuch as the author depends on reader as a presupposition for his or her activity, and the reader is dependent on the author for guidance in the world of fiction, for the ‘script’ that he or she to internalize in order to successfully take part in the play.

The pragmatic study of literary activity focuses on the features that characterize this dialectic aspect of literary production: the text as an author-originated and-guided, but at the same time reader-oriented and-activated process of wording. The reader is constrained by the limitations of text; but also, the text provides the necessary degrees of freedom in which the reader can collaborate with the author to construct the proper textual universe, one that is consonant with the broader contextual conditions that mark the world and times in which the reader lives.

Strictly speaking, the author creates the narrator. The pragmatics of authorship vs. ‘narratorship’ are of the utmost importance for the successful cooperation between the users involved in the production and consumption of the literary work. Narrativity, however defined, in always a pragmatic quality of texts.

Secondly, it deals with some of the pragmatic mechanisms: reference, tense and discourse. An understanding of the fictional world is prior to, and a precondition for, any further or deeper understanding of the text; the establishment of the correct reference is a consequence of this understanding.

With regard to tense in literary works, the relationships between tense as a linguistic category and time as a physical reality are extremely complicated. Ehrlich establishes the following distinctions: ‘speech time’, ‘event time’, ‘reference time’. Written text has a specific morphological device called ‘tense’ available to indicate the various canonical times: ET, RT and ST.

Since a text is a typical social product, created by users in an environment of socially determined conditions, discourse looms large in all textual interpretation. The discourse aspect of the text is not just a passive one, a reader being entertained by an author; on the contrary the success of the text depends on the reader’s active collaboration in creating the textual universe. The reader is party to the textual discourse as much as in the author.

Fourthly, Mey discusses the contextual phenomenon called voice. Voices have to be understood in an interactive process of ongoing collaboration between all the parties involved. He illustrates the crucial role of ‘voice’ in a pragmatic approach to text by showing the interplay of voices.

In this chapter, Mey deals with 5 issues, namely, author and reader, author and narrator, textual mechanisms, voice and point of view, and reading as a pragmatic act. Let’s look at them respectively.

Firstly, Mey raises such a question: How does literature relate to pragmatics? This question must be seen from the angle of the user, however, who is the user? It seems that we have to recognize the reader, who acquires the products of someone else’s(the author’s) literary activity, as the user. Authors and readers have more in common. Usually, the readers don’t just buy the book, but buy the author to take home. The book that the author has done in producing the text has to be supplemented and completed by the reader: reading is a collaborative activity which takes place between author and reader, reading is an innovative process of active re-creation, not just the passive. The reader, as an active collaborator, extends his or her influence beyond the acquisition of a text and its subsequent assimilation. The reader’s contribution consists in entering the universe that the author has created, and by doing so, becomes an actor. By acting, however, the reader changes the play: what the reader reads is, in the final analysis, his or her own co-production along with the author. So now we can see, the pragmatic study of literary activity focuses on: the text s an author0originated and –guided, and reader-oriented and –activated process of wording.

    Secondly, Mey takes every effort to differ author and narrator. In our opinion, author, the producer of the book, must be the narrator. However, in many cases, the author is not the narrator, but someone else. Mey illustrates the important difference that exists in a literary production between author and narrator by an example. Strictly speaking, the author creates the narrator, the story that the author produces can be told in the first person, in the second person, and more rarely, in the second person. In a sense, the narrator always is a character in the story, whether or not he explicitly manifests himself or herself on the scene. As we see, the pragmatics of authorship vs narratorship are of the unmost importance for the successful cooperation between the users involved in the production and consumption of the literary work.

     Thirdly, Mey raises a question: How does the consumer of a text (reader) go about understanding the narrative, as it has been situated in place, time and discourse by the text producer? To solve the problem, Mey elaborates the three aspects, namely, reference, tense and discourse. Reading a book, we have no difficulty in differing who “he” “she” “it” refer to, however, if we abstract a sentence out of a book, it is difficult for us to understand who the reference refer to. So Mey gets a conclusion: By entering the world of the text, by becoming participants in the drama enacted in the narrative, we become at the same time understanders of the ways in which the personae interact, and how they are textually referred to. After solving the problem, Mey goes on with “tense”, still, he gives us some examples, and say: 1. The occurrence of a linguistic anomaly can only be explained by reference to a larger frame of narration, in which such a combination makes sense. This is the “readerly”, pragmatic interpretation of the difficulty. 2. While the occurrence of a particular linguistic form is not sufficient, by itself, to make the correct inferences, linguistic forms are certainly a much-needed help in the analysis of a text;s pragmatic content. As for discourse, Mey thinks that we can look at it from two perspectives: a passive one and an active one. The former means that on entering the world of a novel or a play, we deliver ourselves into the hands of the author, who is going to act as our cicerone through the textual maze, the latter means that the success of the text depends on the reader’s active collaboration in creating the textual universe.

    Fourthly, Mey proposes a term “voice”, which means the contextual phenomenon, and the process by which voices are created is called “voicing”. To illustrate “voice” and “voicing”, Mey gives us some examples, and discusses them elaborately. At last, he draws a conclusion: It is only through an active, collaborative effort, shared between reader and author that this interplay of voices can be successfully created and recreated.

    Fifthly, we all know that the words has power, among which some are more powerful than others, so that speech act theory has been created, and so has been pragmatic act. However, our linguistic acting is part of our overall human activity, we act in concerted cooperation with other humans, in their co-presence and in the co-and contexts of word and world, out of context, speech acts are not valid instrument of action. Mey gives us an example, after discussing it, and says: Generally speaking, we can further say that given the correct circumstances, pragmatic acts are pre-defined: a pragmatic act is a kind of self-fulfilling promise, threat, excuse or what have you, the exact nature of the act depending on the circumstances, the setting-up, that the context does for us. In reading, as in other pragmatic acting, it is the general contextual conditions and presuppositions that make any understanding possible.

    What is of especial interest to me is that Mey points out that reading is a pragmatic act, which has never been proposed before, and really, it is interesting and meaningful.

This chapter mainly talks about literary pragmatics. In Mey's point of view, the action of itself is a kind of pragmatic act. This chapter mainly talks about five points.

First, it discusses the dialectic aspect of literary production in pragmatic study. The literary works are produced both author and the reader. The text as an author ---originated and ---guided, but at the same time  reader ---oriented and activated process of wording.

Then, it leads us to the distinction of author and narrator. In the literatural text, the author creates the narrator, either explicitly or implicitly, which always is a 'character' in the story. It is important that the reader be made to understand that the narrator's persona is not identical with that of the author or any other character.

Third, the author shifts to discuss textual mechanisms-----reference, tense and discourse.

1) Reference   It is important to see how our understanding of the fictional world is contingent upon our acceptance of the author as an 'authority’, as an auctor in the classical sense: a creator who speaks the word by which the creatures become alive; or at least one who, having been 'present at the creation', is allowed to share this experience and wisdom by acting as a mouthpiece for the creative force. Such an understanding is prior to, and a precondition for, any further or deeper understanding of the text; the establishment of the correct references is a consequence of this understanding, not its effective cause.

2) Tense  The relationships between tense as a linguistic category and time as a physical reality are no  differences in literary works. Ehrlich(1990)establishes the following distinctions: first, we have the time at which the utterance is spoken: this is "speech time"(ST). Then, there is the time at which the event that is spoken about took place: this is called 'event time'(ET).And finally, we have that is indicated by the temporal indicators of the utterance. This temporal perspective is called 'reference time'(RT).

The relations between RT, ST and ET may not follow the standard pattern, or even be entirely disrupted, so that we can only understand what's going on by appealing to our understanding of the pragmatic world in which the interplay between the tenses is taking place. Written text has a specific morphological device called 'tense' available to indicate the various canonical times: ET, RT and ST. A narrative cannot do without

this linguistic category of tense.

3) Discourse   Discourse was defined as 'the ensemble of phenomena in and through which social production which social production of meaning takes place'.

When entering the world of a novel or a play, on one hand, we deliver ourselves into the hands of the author, who is going to act as cicerone through the textual maze. On the other hand, the discourse aspect of a text is not just a passive one, a reader being entertained by an author; on the contrary, the success of the text depends on the reader's active collaboration in creating the textual universe (Mey 1995).The reader is party to the textual discourse as is the author: only in the meeting of their 'heads'.

The reader goes about this process of (self-) activation by credibility: the writer has to establish a universe of discourse that the reader is willing to accept on the author's 'author-ity'; that authority in its turn is dependent on how skillfully the author manages to arrange the events and persons she or he is depicting, and how skillfully the author manages to assign the characters their proper 'voice'. Then the author gives us examples to prove his view.

Fourth, it discusses voice and 'point if view’. Characters do not always 'behave’. Authors frequently complain that their personae assume independent lives and voices, and that the plot starts to develop by an inner logic of its own, with the author as a bemused on the sidelines, following the antics of his or her creatures and chronicling them as best he or she can.

The process by which (theatrical or literary) voices are created is called voicing appearing on the scene are embodied in the dramatis personae, originally 'personified' by the masks worn in the classical theatre. Voices have to be understood in an interactive process of ongoing collaboration between all the parties involved. It is this contextual cooperation that the process of 'voicing', in the final analysis, presupposes and represents.

Fifth, it discusses reading as a pragmatic act. Pragmatic acts is the fact that the former depend not so much on the actual words being used as on the circumstances that lead up to, and accompany, those words.

How to apply the concept of 'pragmatic act' in the context of reading?    One, successful reading depends on the readers' willingness to accept their share of the text work, on their ability to take their proper seats in the fiction theater, to become true lectores in fabula. The readers' ability to do this, depends to a great extent on an author's ability to create this theater, to give the readers a possibility to assume their stance in the fictional space.

Two, the linguistic competence of a reader is commonly understood as comprising the ability to assign the correct reference to textual elements such as pronouns, deictics, subjects of verbs and so on.

Three, we rely on heavily for solving textual riddles is that of conventional implicature.

Four, in any normal text we may expect a certain syntactic and semantic continuity that encourages us to stick with an interpretation.

  This chapter is basically about literary texts from the pragmatic point of view, which contains five parts, viz. author and reader; author and narrator; textual mechanism; voice and ‘point of view’; and lastly, reading as a pragmatic act.

  First, author and reader. Literary works reading is a collaborative activity, taking place between author and reader: reading is an innovative process of active re-creation, not just the passive, pre-set and pre-determined use of some ‘recreational facility’, Mey points out. The reader, as an active collaborator, is a major player in the literary game, and the reader’s influence extends beyond the acquisition of a text and its subsequent assimilation through the visual and psychological processes that we usually associate with reading. The reader’s contribution consists in entering the universe that the author has created, and by doing so, becoming an actor, rather than a mere spectator by acting, however, the reader changes the play: what the reader reads is, in the final analysis, his or her own co-production along with the author. Mey calls this interaction a dialectic process, inasmuch as the author depends on the reader as a presupposition for his her activity, and the reader is dependent on the author for guidance in the world of fiction. The pragmatic study of literary activity focuses on the features that characterize this dialectic aspect of literary production: the text as an author-originated and –guided, but at the same time reader-oriented and –activated process of wording. The reader is constrained by the limitations of the text; but also, the text provides the necessary degrees of freedom in which the reader can collaborate with the author to construct the proper textual universe.

  Second, author and narrator. As to this aspect, Mey points out that in a literary production, there is any difference between author and narrator. Strictly speaking, the author creates the narrator, either explicitly or implicitly. In a sense, the narrator always is a ‘character’ in a story, whether or not he explicitly manifests himself on the scene, and cannot be held responsible for the actions and opinions of the other characters; neither can the author be identified with the actions and opinions of the characters. Mey states that the pragmatics of authorship vs. ‘narratorship ’are of the utmost importance for the successful cooperation between the users in volved in the production and consumption of the literary work.

  Third, Mey deals with some pragmatic mechanisms, viz. reference; tense; discourse. On reference, Mey points out that the way we have learnt to use reference in our language is an indispensable help in our understanding of texts. However, it is never an absolute guarantee of a particular understanding, and the establishment of linguistic reference is pragmatically based on the context. On tense, Mey thinks that tense is a means of situating an utterance in time relative to a user. He analyses tense by quoting the logician Hans Reichenbach’s three distinctive ‘times’: speech time(ST), viz. the time at which the utterance is spoken; event time(ET), viz. the time at which the event that is spoken about took place; reference time(RT), viz. the time that is indicated by the temporal indicators of the utterance. On discourse, Mey thinks that discourse looms large in all textual interpretation, on the other hand, the discourse aspect of a text is not just a passive one, the reader is party to the textual discourse as much as is the author.

  Fourth, voice and ‘point of view’, on this issue, Mey says that voices have to be understood in an interactive process of ongoing collaboration between all the parties involved. It is this contextual cooperation that the process of ‘voicing’. In the final analysis, presupposes and represents.

  Last, reading as a pragmatic act. On this point, Mey indicates that upon entering the fictional space, the readers more or less resign their autonomy and follow the instructions of its creator, the author, as the textual authority is suitably designed, and it is true that successful reading depends on the readers’ willingness to accept their share of the text work, on their ability to take their proper seats in the fictional theater, to become true lectores in fibula. The readers’ ability to do this depends to a great extent on an author’s ability to create this theater, to give the readers a possibility to assume their stance in the fictional space; it is in this ‘setting up’ of the readers tha the pragmatic character of the act of reading becomes all-important. The pragmatic act of reading implies an open-ended invitation to the reader to join the author in the co-creation of the story, by filling in the holes that the text leaves open. In reading, as in other pragmatic acting, it is the general contextual conditions and presuppositions that make any understanding possible.

This chapter is basically about literary pragmatics. In this reading report, five points will be addressed.

          First, Mey introduces the relationship between author and reader. Reading is a collaborative activity, taking place between author and reader: reading is an innovative process of active re-creation. It follows that the reader, as an active collaborator, is a major player in the literary game. What the reader reads is, in the final analysis, his or her own co-production along with the author. Mey calls this interaction a dialectic process. The pragmatic study of literary activity focuses on the features that characterize this dialectic aspect of literary production: the text as author-organized and –guided, but at the same time reader-oriented and –activated process of wording.

          Second, Mey deals with the relationship between author and narrator. He first          takes the novel ‘The Republic Dreams’ for example to illustrate the important differences existing in the literary production between author and narrator. Then he explains that the pragmatic relevance of our distinction is in the different uses that author and reader make of it in producing, respectively consuming, a piece of text. The pragmatics of authorship vs. ‘narratorship’ is of the most importance for the successful cooperation between the users involved in the production and consumption of the literary work.

          The third part deals with textual mechanisms, which include the phenomenon of reference, the role of tense and discourse.

          As to the phenomenon of reference, Mey mainly talks about the role which reference plays in our understanding of texts. The way we have learnt to use reference in our language is an indispensable help in our understanding of texts; however, it is never an absolute guarantee of a particular understanding. Textual world is both pragmatically dependent upon, and preconditional to, the establishment of linguistic reference.

          When referring to the role of tense, Mey first introduces Ehrlich’s distinction between the different ‘times’: ‘speech time’ (ST), “event time’ (ET) and ‘reference time’ (RT). In order to show the contrast between these ‘times’, Ehrlich provides the following example: John had already completed his paper last week. Here, “the RT is last week, the ET is an unspecified time prior to last week, and the ST occurs after both RT and ET” (Ehrlich 1990: 6). Here, the relations between RT, ST and ET may not always follow to the standard pattern, or even be entirely disrupted, so that we can only understand what’s going on by appealing to our understanding of the pragmatic world in which the interplay between the tenses is taking place.

          Discourse looms large in all textual interpretation. Generally, on entering the world of a novel or play, we deliver ourselves into the hands of the author, who is going to act as our cicerone through the textual maze (Mey 1994d). On the other hand, the success of the text depends on the reader’s active collaboration in creating the textual universe. The key word of this process of self-activation is credibility: the writer has to establish a universe of discourse that the reader is willing to accept on the author’s ‘authority’; that authority in its turn is dependent on how skillfully the author manages to assign the characters their proper ‘voices’. In order to illustrate this point, Mey takes William Faulkner’s novel As I Lay Dying for example. At the end, Mey concludes that “Our knowledge about what can happen in narrative is conditioned by our pragmatic presupposition, as well as by the ‘contract’ that we enter into upon opening a novel”.

          Fourth, Mey discusses voice: the contextual phenomena of ‘reader pragmatics’. The process by which voices are created is called voicing. Voices are made possible within the universe of discourse. They have to be understood in an interactive process of ongoing collaboration between all the parties involved. It is this contextual cooperation that the process of ‘voicing’, in the final analysis, presupposes and represents. Then, the author illustrates the crucial role of ‘voice’ in a pragmatic approach to text by showing the interplay of voices, as it is acted our in  The Republic of Dreams. After all these illustrations, Mey concludes that “It is only through an active, collaborative effort, shared between reader and author, that this interplay of voices can be successfully created and recreated.”

          The last topic discussed in this chapter is the pragmatic act of reading. Mey mainly refers to two questions. He first takes the theory of pragmatic acts several steps further: given the correct circumstances, pragmatic acts are pre-defined: a pragmatic act is a kind of self-fulfilling promises, threat, excuse or what have you, the exact nature of the act depending on the circumstances, the ‘setting-up’，that the context does for us.

          The second question discussed in this section is how to apply the concept of ‘pragmatic act’ in the context of reading. Mey only deals with this question in a general way. The reader’s ability to take their proper seats in the fictional space; it is in this ‘setting up’ of the readers that the pragmatic character of the act of reading becomes all important. The pragmatic act of reading implies an open-ended incitation to the reader to join the author in the co-creation of the story by filling in the holes that the text leaves open. In a word, in reading, as in other pragmatic acting, it is the general contextual conditions and presuppositions that make any understanding possible.

In this chapter, the author talked about the literary pragmatics. Mey thought in the reading time, the author, the reader or the narrator is all the man who had managed the language.

He talked five issues in this chapter. The introduction, the author and narrator, textual mechanisms, voice and point of view, and reading as a pragmatic act and so on.

We have the phenomenon of ‘literacy’, interpreted either as the ability to read and write, or as the actual production and consumption of written texts.

What is the significance of pragmatics for the study of written text?, or more broadly: how does literature relate to pragmatics? Has to be seen from the angle of the user? But who is this user, when it comes to literature?

We seem to recognize the reader as the user par excellence: it is he or she who acquires the products of someone else’s literary activity, and by consuming them, satisfies a personal need, and indirectly, provides the author, the producer of the text, with a living. This relationship is not just one of buying and selling a regular commodity; authors and readers, while being distinguished by their different positions on the supply side, respectively the demand side, of the literary market, has more in common than your regular sellers and buyers. It is the degree and kind of collaboration which is displayed in the literary ‘market’ that makes it different from a pure exchange of commodities. You don’t just buy a book: you buy an author to take home with you. The work that the author has done in producing the text has to be supplemented and completed by you, the reader. Reading is a collaborative activity, taking place between author and reader: reading is an innovative process of active re-creation, not just the passive, pre-set and pre-determined use of some ‘recreational facility’.

The reader, as an active collaborator, is a major player in the literary game. His or her influence extends beyond the acquisition of a text and its subsequent assimilation through the visual and psychological processes that we usually associate with reading. The reader’s contribution consists in entering the universe that the author has created, and by doing so, becoming an actor, rather than a mere spectator. By acting, however, the reader changes the play: what the reader reads is, in the final analysis, his or her own co-production along with the author. The author depends on the reader, and the reader is dependent on the author for guidance in the world of fiction, for the ‘script’ that he or she to internalize in order to successfully take part in the play.

The pragmatic study of literary activity focuses on the features that characterize this dialectic aspect of literary production: the text ad an author-originated and –guided, but at the same time reader-oriented and –activated process of wording. The reader is constrained by the limitations of the text; but also, the text provides the necessary degrees of freedom in which the reader can collaborate with the author to construct the proper textual universe, one that is consonant with the broader contextual conditions that mark the world and times in which the reader lives.

As we have seen, readerly control of the narration’s vagaries is sustained though a variety of devices, some of which are linguistic, while others belong to the domain of what one could call ‘reader pragmatics’. Among the latter, there is one that stands out by its importance and frequent use: the contextual phenomenon Mey called voice, by others also called ‘point of view’. Despite its importance for the analysis and understanding of text, ‘voice’ and its related contextual concepts have found no accepted place in the deliberations of those pragmatically oriented researchers who hail from various linguistic backgrounds: in most cases, their span of attention is limited by the purely grammatical, co-textual phenomena.

The notion that there is power in words, and that among our words certain are more powerful than others, is not new; in face, it is at the basis of some very old and fundamental beliefs about language being an instrument of force.

Our linguistic acting is part of our overall human activity, we can act in concerted cooperation with other humans, in their co-presence and in the co-texts of word and world. Basic to pragmatic acts depend not so much on the actual words being used as on the circumstances that lead up to, and accompany, those words.