Pragmatics (Lecture on Language Education and Linguistic Information I)

Transcription

1 Pragmatics (Lecture on Language Education and Linguistic Information I) Speech Acts D. Y. Oshima Second Semester, AY DICOM-GSID-Nagoya University

2 Speech Act Theory Initiated by John L. Austin, developed by John R. Searle. saying & doing, words & deeds

3 Performatives vs. constatives Background: Logical positivism; the key function of language is to make true or false statements. 1. Snow is white. Some sentences do not state: 2. Good morning! 3. Is she a vegetarian? 4. Close the window, please.

4 Performatives vs. constatives Some declaratives performatives are not used to describe a state of affairs but rather to carry out an action. 1. I christen/name this ship the Princess Elizabeth. 2. I now pronounce you man and wife. 3. I sentence you to ten years in prison. 4. I promise to come back by 6pm. 5. I command you to surrender immediately. 6. I apologize for being late.

5 Performatives vs. constatives The performativity can be made explicit by the use of a performative verb and the adverb hereby. A performative verb typically (i) has a first- A performative verb typically (i) has a firstperson singular subject, and (ii) is in the simple present tense, the indicative mood, and the active voice.

6 Performatives vs. constatives Constatives: 1. It is raining outside. 2. He will come to the party. 3. I promised to come to the party. Performatives: Explicit (with a performative verb) 4. I promise to come to the party. Implicit (without a performative verb) 5. I ll come to the party.

7 Felicity conditions on performatives felicity conditions vs. truth conditions Certain conditions must be met for a performative to be successful (or felicitous ). misfire, abuse

8 Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts From the constative/performative dichotomy to a general theory of speech acts: 1. a. (in the middle of an academic talk) Excuse me, but I think... b. John s wife is feminist. 2. I hereby state that John is innocent. Constatives are a special case of performatives.

9 Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts Three facets of a speech act: locutionary act (phonic, phatic, rhetic): the production of a meaningful linguistic expression illocutionary act: the action intended to be performed by a speaker in uttering a linguistic expression, by virtue of the conventional force associated with it. perlocutionary act: the bringing about of consequences or effects on the audience through the uttering of a linguistic expression, such consequences or effects being special to the circumstances of the utterance.

10 Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts 1. Don t do it. 2. a. He said Don t do it. b. He ordered me not to do it. c. He stopped me. d. He pissed me off.

11 Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts An illocutionary act refers to an action that the speaker accomplishes (or intends to accomplish) in the course of an utterance; e.g., accusing, apologizing, blaming, congratulating, giving permission, joking, naming, promising, ordering, refusing, swearing, and thanking. illocutionary force, illocutionary force indicating device, illocutionary act potential

12 Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts The same locutionary act may have different illocutionary forces in different settings. 1. The gun is loaded. The same force may be realized by different types of clauses. 2. Give me coffee, please. 3. Can I have coffee? 4. I d like coffee.

13 Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts Perlocutionary acts/effects (i) are not always intentional, (ii) are not under the speaker s full-control, and (iii) are less conventionally tied to linguistic forms. consequence, by-product

14 Felicity conditions as constitutive rules Searle s view: the felicity conditions are not only ways in which a speech act can be (in)appropriate, but they also jointly constitute the illocutionary act/force. In other words, the felicity conditions are the constitutive rules, i.e., rules that create the activity itself.

15 Felicity conditions as constitutive rules Searle s classification of felicity conditions: i. propositional content ii. preparatory conditions iii. sincerity conditions iv. essential conditions

16 Taxonomy of speech acts Austin s five types: i. verdictives ii. exercitives iii. commissives iv. behabitatives v. expositives

17 Taxonomy of speech acts Searle s taxonomy (of illocutionary acts): 1. speech act type 2. direction of fit ( words to world or world to words ) 3. expressed psychological state 4. propositional content

18 Taxonomy of speech acts Searle s five types: i. representatives (assertives) ii. directives iii. commissives iv. expressives v. declarations (declaratives)

19 Taxonomy of speech acts i. representatives (assertives) ii. asserting, claiming, concluding, reporting, stating,... words-to-world expresses the speaker s belief directives advice, command, order, question, request,... world-to-words expresses the speaker s desire

20 Taxonomy of speech acts iii. commissives offer, pledge, promise, refusal, threat,... world-to-words expresses the speaker s intention iv. expressives apologizing, blaming, congratulating, praising, thanking,... no direction of fit expresses the speaker s emotions

21 Taxonomy of speech acts v. declarations (declaratives) declaring war, excommunicating, firing from employment, nominating a candidate,... two-way fit does not express psychological state relies on extralinguistic institutions

22 Direct vs. indirect speech acts Three (arguably) universal clause types: i. declarative ii. iii. interrogative imperative Clause types may be differentiated by various morphological, syntactic, and phonological means. Different clause types are associated with different illocutionary forces: declaratives & asserting/stating, interrogatives & questionning, imperatives & ordering/requesting

23 Direct vs. indirect speech acts direct speech acts: cases where there is a direct match between a clause type and an illocutionary force (including explicit performatives) indirect speech acts: cases where there is no direct match. 1. I request you to pass the salt. 2. Pass the salt. 3. Can you pass the salt? Indirect speech acts are generally considered to be more polite than direct ones.

24 Direct vs. indirect speech acts Indirect usages are not rare or marginal. 1. Close the window. 2. I want you to close the window. 3. You ought to close the window. 4. I wonder if you d mind closing the window. 5. Can you close the window? 6. Would you close the window? 7. Would you mind closing the window?

25 Direct vs. indirect speech acts How is an indirect speech act analysed? 1) Searle (1975b): dual illocutionary force primary (indirect, non-literal) vs. secondary (direct, literal) disambiguation involves Gricean inference (based on the Co-operative Principle) There is a certain degree of conventionality about indirect speech acts (Morgan s (1978) short-circuited implicature)

26 Direct vs. indirect speech acts 1. a. Can you pass the salt? b. Are you able to pass the salt? c. Do you have the ability to pass the salt? 2. a. Please pass the salt. b. Can you please pass the salt? c.?are you able to pass the salt please? d.?do you have the ability to pass the salt please?

27 Direct vs. indirect speech acts 2) Conversational postulates (Gordon & Lakoff 1975) 3) Idiom model (Sadock 1974, among others) 1. Can you pass the salt? Yes, I can. Here you are. 2. Would you mind closing the window? Of course I don t.