Pragmatics Implicature Speech Acts Illocutionary Acts Classified

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Pragmatics Implicature Speech Acts Illocutionary Acts Classified

Pragmatics Pragmatics is the study of the way language is used. It is the study not of sentences, but of utterances: sentences (complete and incomplete) spoken by particular people in particular circumstances. Observations about how language is used: 1. sentences can imply information that is not stated explicitly 2. we don't just say things, we do things by uttering sentences 3. who is participating can determine the effect of what is said 4. a correct answer to a question may not be appropriate 5. speakers don't always mean what they say Implicature "Conversational maxims": Paul Grice Maxim of Quantity Maxim of Quality Maxim of Relation (Maxim of Relevance) Maxim of Manner Speech Acts Locutionary Act Illocutionary Act Perlocutionary Effect Illocutionary Acts Classified Representatives Directives Questions Commissives Expressives Declarations Handout for Psy 598-02, summer 2001 Packer Pragmatics 2 Problems with this classification: There are several problems with this classification 1. Nofsinger 2. The definitions of the speech act families are given in very mentalist terms. "Expressives" are the clearest example of this. Felicity Conditions Preparatory Conditions Sincerity Conditions Essential Condition Propositional Content Condition Explicit and Nonexplicit Speech Acts performative verbs Direct and Indirect Speech Acts Illocutionary Act Syntactic Form Representative Declarative Commissive Declarative Declaration?? Declarative Directive Imperative Yes-No Question Yes-No Interrogative Wh-Question Wh-Interrogative Expressive Exclamatory Expressed and Implied Speech Acts Literal and Nonliteral Speech Acts A speeaker does not always mean what they say. More accurately, a speech act is not always what it seems to be on a literal interpretation of the words. For example, “You can say that again” taken literally would be the granting of permission to repeat ones words. But of course it is an agreement, an alignment, with what has just been said..

Copy Link

Recommended publications

John Rogers Searle and His Contribution to Speech Act Theory
JOHN ROGERS SEARLE AND HIS CONTRIBUTION TO SPEECH ACT THEORY RANSHING PRATAP RAMDAS Ph. D. Research Scholar Department of English Dr. B.A. M.U. Aurangabad (MS) INDIA Pragmatics is the branch of linguistics which studies the meaning communicated through language. Pragmatics studies the process by which native users of a language use native language. Pragmatics studies the meaning in the context sentence is made. Pragmatics is the newer area of language study in linguists. The important development in the pragmatics is the origin of speech act theory. J. L. Austin is the originator of the Speech act theory. According to J. L. Austin all utterances are some type of speech act. People not only produce utterances to convey their feelings but also perform actions in between their speech. Even a simple utterance such as ‘Violets are blue’ might be regarded as a special type of act namely the act of making a statement. This overall approach to language study is known as ‘speech act theory’. INTRODUCTION John Rogers Searle He is born on 31 July 1932. He is an American Philosopher. He is widely noted for his contribution to the philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, social philosophy. Searle began his early college education at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. He received all his university degrees, B.A., M.A., and D. Phil from Oxford University. He held first position in a faculty. He has five honorary doctorate degrees from four different countries and is an honorary visiting professor. In 2000, he received the Jean Nicod Prize, in 2004 the National Humanities Medal and in 2006, the Mind and Brain Prize.
[Show full text]
Is There an Illocutionary Act of Assertion?
English Studies at NBU, 2015 ISSN 2367-5705 (Print) Vol. 1, Issue 2, 71-84 www.esnbu.org IS THERE AN ILLOCUTIONARY ACT OF ASSERTION? Mariya Chankova South-West University, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria Abstract This contribution analyzes Cappelen’s No-Assertion view arguing that, although appealing, the No-Assertion view is based on a questionable premise, namely, that assertions are sayings. Austin’s notions of locution and saying are examined, in order to show that illocutionary acts concern aspects not covered by either of the previous two terms. Following a reconstructed definition of illocutionary act from Austin’s writings, I suggest that assertion is an illocutionary act, in that it takes effect after it is taken up by a hearer. I further suggest that in this respect the game analogy fails with regard to assertion, since no rules of the constitutive kind or norms can intrinsically define this act. This proposal is based on the idea that illocutionary act analysis should dispose of any preoccupations with propositions. It argues that expressing propositions was not originally and should not be at the core of speech act theoretic problematic. Key words: assertion, illocutionary act, proposition Article history: Received: 13 November 2015; Reviewed: 28 November 2015; Revised: 30 November 2015; Accepted: 21 December 2015; Published: 31 December 2015 Mariya Chankova, PhD, is Chief Assistant Professor in French and English at the South-West University, Blagoevgrad, Bulgaria. She teaches courses in French linguistics and translation and English punctuation and orthography and pragmatics. Her research interests include pragmatics, with special emphasis on speech act theory, implicit, conversational implicature, meaning generation, discourse analysis, rhetoric, philosophy of language, multimedia environment and communication, plagiarism, and French translation.
[Show full text]
A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts
----JOHN R. SEARLE----- - A TAXONOMY ()II' rr.r.oCO'l'IONi\HY i\C:TS a prcdictiou, and ouc a promise? 111 order t:o develop higher order ge 11 · era, we must first know how the species promise, prcclictio11, report, etc., differ one from another. When one attempts to answer that ques A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts tion one discovers that there are several quite different principles of distinction; that is, there are different kinds of differences that enable us to say that the force of this utterance is different from the force of that utterance. For this reason the metaphor of force in the expression "illocutionary force" is misleading since it suggests that different illo I. Introduction cutionary forces occupy different positions on a single continuum of The primary purpose of this paper is to develop a reasoned classifica force. What is actually the case is that there are several distinct criss tion of illocutionary acts into certain basic categories or types. It is to crossing continua. A related source of confusion is that we are inclined answer the question: How many kinds of illocutionary acts are there? to confuse illocutionary verbs with types of illocutionary acts. We are Since any such attempt to develop a taxonomy must take into account inclined, for example, to think that where we have two nonsynonymous Austin's classification of illocutionary acts into his five basic categories illocutionary verbs they must necessarily mark two different kinds of il of verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behabitive, and commissive, a second locutionary acts. In what follows, I shall try to keep a clear distinction purpose of this paper is to assess Austin's classification to show in what between illocutionary verbs and illocutionary acts.
[Show full text]
How to Read Austin
Pragmatics 17:3.461-473 (2007) International Pragmatics Association HOW TO READ AUSTIN Marina Sbisà Abstract The goal of this paper is a reassessment of the contributions provided by John L. Austin’s book “How to Do Things with Words” to pragmatics. It discusses some assumptions belonging to the received reading of the volume, as regards its aim and structure, the conceptions of illocution and of perlocution, and the alleged exclusion of “non-seriousness”. Against the received reading, it is argued that “How to Do Things with Words” is structured as a proof by contradiction of the claim that all speech should be considered as action, that in illocution a major role is played by the conventionality of effects, that perlocution presupposes a conception of action as responsibility, and that Austin had reasons not to deal with “non- seriousness” in detail, albeit recognizing the issue as relevant to the study of the uses of language. In the conclusions, the tenets attributed to Austin are neither crtiticized nor defended, but an attempt is made to say what are their implications for research into language use and for philosophy. Keywords: J.L. Austin; Illocutionary act; Perlocutionary act; Convention; Action. 1. Four assumptions to be disputed In this paper I consider what contributions are offered to pragmatics (in a broad sense, ranging from philosophy to interdisciplinary research into language use) by John L. Austin’s famous booklet “How to Do Things with Words” (1962) It might seem the question is otiose: Everybody who has ever been concerned with pragmatics knows that “How to Do Things with Words” (henceforth: HTW) proposes first the performative/constative distinction, then the distinction between meaning and force and the distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary acts.
[Show full text]
Grice's Theory of Implicature and the Meaning of the Sentential
Gergely Bottyán The operationality of Grice’s tests for implicature 1. Introduction In less than a decade after its first publication in 1975, Herbert Paul Grice’s paper Logic and conversation becomes one of the classic treatises of the linguistic subdiscipline now standardly referred to as pragmatics. There are at least two reasons for the paper’s success: (i) it can be regarded as the first truly serious attempt to clarify the intuitive difference between what is expressed literally in a sentence and what is merely suggested by an utterance of the same string of words, (ii) the components of the notional and inferential framework that Grice set up to characterize various kinds of utterance content are intuitively appealing (cf. Haberland & Mey 2002). The present paper has two related aims: (i) to give a comprehensive overview of Grice’s theory of implicature, and (ii) to investigate whether it is possible to test the presence of a conversational implicature on the basis of some or all of the properties that Grice attributes to this construct. It will be argued that of the six characteristics listed by Grice, only cancellability is a practical criterion. However, cancellability is not a sufficient condition of the presence of a conversational implicature. Therefore, additional criteria are needed to arrive at an adequate test. 2. Overview of Grice’s theory of implicature Most of the body of Grice 1975=1989a consists in an attempt to clarify the intuitive difference between what is expressed literally in a sentence and what is merely suggested or hinted at by an utterance of the same string of words.
[Show full text]
Rutgers Semantics Workshop
THE DETERMINATION OF CONTENT Zoltán Gendler Szabó Yale University Abstract: I identify a notion of compositionality at the intersection of the different notions philosophers, linguists, and psychologists are concerned with. The notion is compositionality of expression content: the idea that the content of a complex expression in a context of its utterance is determined by its syntactic structure and the contents of its constituents in the contexts of their respective utterances. Traditional arguments from productivity and systematicity cannot establish that the contents of linguistic expressions are compositionally determined in this sense. I present a novel argument for this thesis based on plausible premises about literal use and a detailed defense of the compositionality of speech-act content. Jerry Fodor writes: “So non-negotiable is compositionality that I’m not even going to tell you what it is.”1 He has a point. Some sort of compositionality is beyond dispute: there must be a recursive mechanism underlying linguistic competence. At the same time, it has proven exceedingly difficult to state the principle precisely without falling into triviality or falsehood. Despite this, I think we should keep trying. The need for clarity is underlined by the fact that in the paper which contains the quote above, Fodor actually argues against the compositionality of natural language. He does so in order to argue for the compositionality of human thought. He reasons as follows: either thought or language must be compositional, and if language isn’t thought must be. This, in turn is supposed to show that thought is explanatorily prior to language: for whichever of the two is compositional must be what is meaningful in the first place.
[Show full text]
What Is a Speech Act? 1 2
WHAT IS A SPEECH ACT? 1 2 What is a Speech Act? John Searle I. Introduction n a typical speech situation involving a speaker, a hearer, and an utterance by the speaker, there are many kinds of acts associated with Ithe speaker’s utterance. The speaker will characteristically have moved his jaw and tongue and made noises. In addition, he will characteristically have performed some acts within the class which includes informing or irritating or boring his hearers; he will further characteristically have performed acts within the class which includes referring to Kennedy or Khrushchev or the North Pole; and he will also have performed acts within the class which includes making statements, asking questions, issuing commands, giving reports, greeting, and warning. The members of this last class are what Austin1 called illocutionary acts and it is with this class that I shall be concerned in this paper, so the paper might have been called ‘What is an Illocutionary Act?’ I do not attempt to deﬁ ne the expression ‘illocutionary act’, although if my analysis of a particular illocutionary act succeeds it may provide the basis for a deﬁ nition. Some of the English verbs and verb phrases associated with illocutionary acts are: state, assert, describe, warn, remark, comment, command, order, request, criticize, apologize, censure, approve, welcome, promise, express approval, and express regret. Austin claimed that there were over a thousand such expressions in English. By way of introduction, perhaps I can say why I think it is of interest and importance in the philosophy of language to study speech acts, or, as they are sometimes called, language acts or linguistic acts.
[Show full text]
Conversational Implicatures (And How to Spot Them)
Conversational Implicatures (and How to Spot Them) Michael Blome-Tillmann McGill University Abstract In everyday conversations we often convey information that goes above and beyond what we strictly speaking say: exaggeration and irony are obvious examples. H.P. Grice intro- duced the technical notion of a conversational implicature in systematizing the phenom- enon of meaning one thing by saying something else. In introducing the notion, Grice drew a line between what is said, which he understood as being closely related to the conventional meaning of the words uttered, and what is conversationally implicated, which can be inferred from the fact that an utterance has been made in context. Since Grice’s seminal work, conversational implicatures have become one of the major re- search areas in pragmatics. This article introduces the notion of a conversational implica- ture, discusses some of the key issues that lie at the heart of the recent debate, and expli- cates tests that allow us to reliably distinguish between semantic entailments and conven- tional implicatures on the one hand and conversational implicatures on the other.1 Conversational Implicatures and their Cancellability In everyday conversations our utterances often convey information that goes above and beyond the contents that we explicitly assert or—as Grice puts it—beyond what is said by our utterances. Consider the following examples:2 (1) A: Can I get petrol somewhere around here? B: There’s a garage around the corner. [A can get petrol at the garage around the corner.] (2) A: Is Karl a good philosopher? B: He’s got a beautiful handwriting.
[Show full text]
Deconstructing Exclamations. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 2008, Vol. 7
Cat.Jour.Ling. 7 001-203:Cat.Jour.Ling. 10/10/08 17:23 Página 41 Catalan Journal of Linguistics 7, 2008 41-90 Deconstructing Exclamations* Elena Castroviejo Miró J.W. Goethe Universität-Frankfurt [email protected] Abstract While it is still not widely accepted that exclamatives are a clause type, exclamations are intu- itively considered a speech act comparable to assertions and questions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the notion of exclamation. In particular, I compare the pragmatic properties of wh- exclamatives with the discourse distribution of other so-called exclamations and argue that they do not have a uniform way to update the Common Ground; by using a series of tests, I show that the sole thing they have in common is an emphatic intonation and a non-neutral attitude on the part of the speaker. Key words: exclamations, exclamative sentences, speech acts, Common Ground. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 5. Concluding remarks 2. Theoretical background 6. Further research 3. Wh-exclamatives: the control group References 4. Exclamations 1. Introduction Usually, the terms exclamative and exclamation are used sloppily to refer to the same kind of phenomenon. Sometimes, though, they are meant to refer to two dif- ferent phenomena; namely, an exclamative is a syntactic construction and an excla- mation is a pragmatic construction whose role is to express the speaker’s feelings. However, even if we agree that this is a meaningful distinction, the term exclama- tion remains a sloppy concept. That is, it seems reasonable to assume that wh-exclamatives are used to perform exclamations, but it is not clear what these * I truly appreciate the comments and suggestions of Xavier Villalba.
[Show full text]
The Phrasal Implicature Theory of Metaphors and Slurs
THE PHRASAL IMPLICATURE THEORY OF METAPHORS AND SLURS Alper Yavuz A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St Andrews 2018 Full metadata for this thesis is available in St Andrews Research Repository at: http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/ Please use this identifier to cite or link to this thesis: http://hdl.handle.net/10023/13189 This item is protected by original copyright This item is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence The Phrasal Implicature Theory of Metaphors and Slurs Alper Yavuz This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) at the University of St Andrews March 2018 Abstract This thesis develops a pragmatic theory of metaphors and slurs. In the pragmatic literature, theorists mostly hold the view that the framework developed by Grice is only applicable to the sentence-level pragmatic phenomena, whereas the subsenten- tial pragmatic phenomena require a diﬀerent approach. In this thesis, I argue against this view and claim that the Gricean framework, after some plausible revisions, can explain subsentential pragmatic phenomena, such as metaphors and slurs. In the ﬁrst chapter, I introduce three basic theses I will defend and give an outline of the argument I will develop. The second chapter discusses three claims on metaphor that are widely discussed in the literature. There I state my aim to present a theory of metaphor which can accommodate these three claims. Chapter3 introduces the notion of \phrasal implicature", which will be used to explain phrase- level pragmatic phenomena with a Gricean approach. In Chapter4, I present my theory of metaphor, which I call \phrasal implicature theory of metaphor" and discuss certain aspects of the theory.
[Show full text]
Uptake and Conventionality in Illocutions
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5.1 (2009) / Special Issue on Speech Actions : 33-52 DOI 10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0 Marina Sbisà ∗ University of Trieste UPTAKE AND CONVENTIONALITY IN ILLOCUTION Abstract The aim of this paper is to put forward a new way of conceiving of the conventionality of illocutionary acts, grounded in a new look at Austin’s original ideas. While the indispensability of uptake has correctly been deemed to be a hallmark of illocution, it has also been taken as evidence of the intention-based nature of illocutionary acts as opposed to their alleged conventionality. After discussing the readings of the “securing of uptake” offered by Strawson and Searle and commenting on the consequently established divide between “communicative” and conventional speech acts, I claim that illocutionary acts are conventional, first of all, because they have conventional effects. I show that Austin took such effects to be essential to illocution and argue that the bringing about of conventional effects is bound up with the indispensability of uptake. Keywords illocutionary act, uptake, convention, Austin, Strawson 1. Premise One of the classical problems in speech act theory is whether, and if so, how illocutionary acts are conventional. This paper addresses this problem and claims that the conventionality of illocutionary acts resides, first of all, in the conventional status of the effects they bring about. This amounts to a change in perspective, since the conventionality of illocutionary acts has traditionally been traced back to ∗ Department of Philosophy, University of Trieste, Androna Campo Marzio 10, 34123 Trieste, Italy e-mail: [email protected] 34 Marina Sbisà Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution the conventionality of the means by which they are performed.
[Show full text]
Relevance Implicatures
Relevance Implicatures Robert van Rooy∗ ILLC/University of Amsterdam [email protected] Abstract According to standard pragmatics, we should account for conversational implicatures in terms of Grice’s (1967) maxims of conversation. Neo-Griceans like Atlas & Levinson (1981) and Horn (1984) seek to reduce those maxims to the so-called Q and I-principles. In this paper I want to argue that (i) there are major problems for reducing Gricean pragmatics to these two principles, and (ii) in fact, we can better account for implicatures by means of an exhaustivity operator deﬁned in terms of a relevance-based ordering relation. 1 Introduction In most circumstances we infer from the fact that the (a) sentences of the following examples are uttered that the (b) sentences are true: (1) a. John ate some of the cookies. b. John didn’t eat all of the cookies (2) a. John is coming or Mary is going. b. John is coming or Mary is going, but not both. (3) a. John is walking, if Mary is talking. b. John is walking if and only if Mary is talking. ∗This note reports on work in progress on the use of relevance for the semantic analysis of natural language. Parts of this paper was presented at the second workshop on Optimality Theoretic Semantics at OTS in Utrecht (2000) and at the Formal Pragmatics conference in Berlin (2001). I would like to thank the participants of those events for their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers, Reinhard Blutner and expecially Katrin Schulz.
[Show full text]