Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theory,
Discourse
Structure
and Indirect
Speech Acts
Peter
Wilfred
Hesling
Smith
Submitted
in
Accordance
with Doctor
for
the
Degree
of
The Candidate that the work submitted confirms has been given where that appropriate credit made to the work of others.
is
his
Abstract
Speech Act is concerned Theory in the with ways which language be It originated but Austin, can used. with was developed by Searle. The theories Searle of Austin and are described it is to and several If problem areas are identified. be a viable theory of language usage, speech act theory must be to integrate because able with a theory of discourse structure, if it speech acts are identifiable then as units of language, include them in a model must be possible of discourse. The second discourse chapter examines structure, examining two theories: the discourse rival the analysis approach and is broadly Discourse conversational analysis approach. analysis to theory, sympathetic speech act whereas, conversational is The claims analysis not. of conversational analysis are in several to be wanting Speech examined and are found respects. is then Act discussed Theory the a particular with emphasis on larger to each other problem of relating speech acts a within It is noted by including that Austin, the of discourse. unit for the possibility expositive class of speech acts, allows of between description Searle's relations speech acts, whereas of between speech acts effectively rules out any relations speech acts. The third develops in terms chapter speech acts of a schematic model consisting of cognitive states, a presumed The cognitive effect of the speech act and an action. states are represented modal using and deontic operators on the proposition logic. idea description This within epistemic of the of a in terms is developed in Chapter speech act of cognitive states Four. Chapter In Four, speech acts are a related using to pair two speech together communicated cognitive state acts into It is noted the that a primary and secondary speech act. idea the of a primary and secondary speech act is present within discourse form (in the the of analysis model of discourse initiation-response in the cycle of also exchanges) and (in the form to discourse conversational analysis approach of is that from this the two the The conclusion adjacency pair). incompatible first approaches as are perhaps not so might appear. deals types grammatical sentence and with their It also possible use in communicating cognitive states. examines auxiliary and their modal verbs possible relationship to the modal and deontic operators state used in the cognitive model. Six, In Chapter theories of indirect speech acts are described. is developed An explanation of indirect speech acts to and cognitive explain using pragmatic maxims states why indirect forms leads This to a theory certain are chosen. of linguistic and a use model of speech acts. politeness Chapter Five
Contents
1.
Speech
Act
Theory
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10
Introduction The Seminal Work of of Austin Speech of Acts Searle's Theory Approach Approach of Speech of to Act Speech of to Speech Speech Act Acts Acts Theory Speech Acts Acts
1 2 3 8 19 23 25 27 31 35
Linguistic
Inferential
Models
2.
Discourse
Structure
41
2.1 2.2
Introduction Linguistic
Discourse Conversational
41 Approaches
Analysis Analysis Models of Discourse Structure to
to
Discourse
Structure
45
45 48 54
2.3 2.4
Intelligence
Approaches
56 60
3.
The Deconstruction
of
Speech Act
Verbs
69
Introduction Speech Acts A Description 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 3.3.5 3.3.6 Claim Assure Argue Inform Conjecture Swear as Schemas of Assertive Speech Acts
69 79 87 87 88 90 91 93 94
3.4
Commissive
3.4.1
Speech Act
Verbs
95
95
Promise
3.4.2 3.4.3 3.5 Directive 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 3.6 3.7
Consent Refuse Speech Act Request Tell Require Permit and Expressive to Support the Speech Act Cognitive Verbs in Verbs
Declarative Evidence
Child
Thesis
Language
107
What is Formal
the
Cognitive
State
Hypothesis?
Speech Acts
and Expressives
Conclusions
4.
Speech Acts
and Discourse
Structure
120
4.1
4.2
Introduction
Cognitive States and Context
120
125
Schemas States
Restated
5.
to
Utterance
156
5.1
5.2
Introduction
The Four Basic Sentence Types
156
159
5.3 5.4
and Sentential
Structure States
Auxiliaries
and Cognitive
Ought
On a Taxonomy
181
6.
Indirect
Speech Acts
185
185 187 193 193 Speech Acts Maxims, and Authority and Indirect 196 197 Based on Cognitive 202 Speech Acts Model of and Pragmatic the Speech Act Maxims "Request" 213 217 224 195
Indirect
Politeness
Speech Acts 6.4 6.5 Politeness Strategies States 6.6 6.7 6.8 Indirect and Face for Indirectness
A Schematic Summary
References Appendix 1
226 233
Figures
and Tables
13 14 15 126
Conversation
Table
4.1
The Structural
ASSERT/STATE(P)
Relationships
of
137
Table
4.2
Relationships
for 140
Table
4.3
The Structural
FORBID(P)
Relationships
for
140
Table
4.4
The State
Relationships
of
the 144
Table
4.5
Possible want(S
Responses
to 144
Acknowledgements
started
work it
thesis
in
October
1985, would of of
little have to
with
Natural speech
Processing
slowly
theory. There were two major thesis. to City changes to my life of these This to that took place away
during from
my work Leeds
on the
Polytechnic
beneficial, and Leeds valuable However, station The Christopher, joyous thesis. his to first full first there
develop
problems the
located were
University. as they
me time if
certain wait at
be sorry
I don't
have to
change took a
in place major
my life in
was
birth and
of
my
son a the
December to
although of
event,
posed
threat
completion night
never
slept
during exhausted at a
me too
on the at it
almost
evenings to the
respect
thesis,
of the
course more to in
thank
David
mysterious thank
speech
I would me an
like
Sachiko
stimulating
interest
politeness. I idea of must face thank and for to my wife providing Sim for explaining some of the to the me the Chinese
me with
various with
members of
Philosophy
whom I have
Lewis to
Millican.
Millican
Muzio
Gambit
the
with provided
thanks
the
financial a light
support timetable
of load
City in my
me with
year of
grudgingly in the
the the
would
my wife the
forebearance on Friday,
and for
putting
up with
Saturday I would be
Sunday
evenings the
(as well
as the
the
week)
upstairs
using
word processor.
of course debt thank of to my supervisor gratitude. know and to David What have can worked Holdcroft I say? with
immense it
an honour
a scholar
and
a gentleman.
-1-
1.
Speech
Act
Theory
1.1
Introduction
of
this
will Speech
be to Act to
explore
what
should
speech
within
more up
computational that by
wider
thrown of
problems developed
view sufficient I
speech to
Searle use.
an explanation explore attention cognitive the taking priori Dreyfus manner role speech to level. of
thesis,
will
set
acts
within
paying speech in
particular acts at a is By a by
explored
indirect
speech
exists,
a non-rule-like
act up
theory by
and recent
some
the
problems in
that Linguistics
particularly Two is
a kind Four
Chapter of
speech extends to
included looks
Five
and
provide as pays in
attention linguistic
use
indirect
politeness.
-2-
1.2
The Seminal
Work of
Austin
Act
Theory
with at
J. L. Austin, Harvard
in 1955 a
by examining in
be verifiable
problems as verifiable
had arisen
statements. statements of
He gave fact.
straightforward which or
However
'report'
or and
constate [for of be
uttering an action
a sentence which
a part
the
doing
would
normally
described
saying
(Austin He and he they things described distinction then went was he stated are
something.
op. cit. here this when class p. 3) to utterances of utterance such as I name this ship...,
performative. of this
so much can be
that as
infelicities. between on with He to saw for to constative compare 'certain analysed entailment, some example, with have the sort
clear
happy both
performative
entailments.
But here; in
want at
to least
there is a very
is
any close
parallel parallel
the
two cit.
of
cases... p. 54).
here his has often been overlooked by many
(Austin
Austin's who have
sense attempted
unease to
extend
ideas.
started
a specific as true of
problem or false.
viz. He
statements in
analysed
some detail
performative
statements,
-3-
attempted of
to
relate and,
these at
ideas the
in
way
to
statements
end of
strands utterances
of
unanswered
questions.
was required
the
an utterance.
1.3
Searle's
Theory
of
Speech Acts
key the
to of act
questions
and
problems
was responsible
made
by for
who was primarily into works Van der the in Veken form this (1985). in
which area
it are Searle's
is
now
His
most and
several locutionary, Searle instead acts. distinction Searle act Thus acts carry
respects:
firstly illocutionary
whereas preferring
was
somewhat
sceptical approach is
a rigorous This point concerns on the is if that out force a form we accept are an
description Holdcroft emphasis speech particular term speaker suggestion a stronger the of central illocutionary Austin, speech has fit. acts to
of (1978). placed act. The type describe to get would force. plank
and of
meaning
a a a
force of
gradation directive
speech those
the a
the carry
whereas idea of
carry as
force formal
theory
hand
was more
concerned force.
been
promoted
the
Searle of
maintains fit in
"four
directions i)
an
independently of
A statement
ii)
World-to-Word, propositional
where content
altered
to
fit
the of
illocution.
An example
-4-
an act
would
be
a directive
speech
act,
such
as
an
direction
of
fit
is
when
world
is
altered by I name
propositional as so
content altered.
utterance
example:
SS Titanic". of of fit. fit Where there is word (i. e. no question and those world. where examples of
achieving According the of If dimensional are, the items. explored direction speech Austin into theory. Searle attempted a acts. would Searle possibility When I we speaker the null
expressing
provide
lies words
in then this
between no any
summarise What is
will
be of of that
further. of fit
that to
Indeed have
taken
language Searle's
two-dimensional
to
describe
the
differences
between
the
different to
types
of
illocutionary important
acts
Searle
(1979).
He was
able
distinguish
twelve
differences:
Differences is one of
in the
the
point
of
the
type
of
The
important is the of
components purpose of
Searle's of is a to
point
an assertive the force. of central apart. the whole of words apart if fit to
Searle
considers
illocutionary
point
words theory,
and if
the it
falls However
described on the as of
notion
rests
language idea
a relationship of
direction
-5-
locutions world. 3.
sometimes
serve
some purpose
other
than
to
relate
to
the
in may
the
An
express or of
desire Searle
an
theory.
number
possible then it
psychological ought to
acts, of
be possible states.
represent idea
these
pursued
underlying
representations 4. Differences
illocutionary in the is
strength is clear
the is of
presented.
suggesting.
we can It
strength that together, from one point individual linear) the the same the issue is
assertive than
suggestion to the of
illocutionary us indeed that of strength ignore to be the able question come to put nonpurvey of this to
question of
types scale, or
illocutionary
is
important
a speech
considerations
politeness
should
sta,: us illocutionary
or
of of very
the the
speaker utterance.
and
hearer
on the
defining is fairly
difference, clear that types has an effect a person status status the of
little of the a
use speakers
on
the
in say
theory to For be
almost upon of
of
example of lower
may make a
a suggestion The by
someone of (1982).
which of
directive. is explored
issue Berry
relative
speaker
hearer
-6-
status
also an remove
to orders
topic, to
under
circumstances, Kindly
example: more
from
my knee. structure,
Perhaps
relevance
when
considering in an some
discourse nature.
contextual affect casts one-to-one point. in and between the the way
However, form
validity
claim form
relationship
between
the
relates Searle is
to
the
hearer. of
as boast pride to It is
to
P is
assert of each
that take
lamenting I very
A lamentation that..., I to
regret For
hand
hold
the
Master's
Title,
chess
to
seen
Notions is
remorse verbs
questionable in rest
whether of
such acts.
lament
should in
included to the
speech
relations
of by
referred that
Austin. speech
certain particularly
belong the
referring a
Smith
However and
Searle's
behind the
the
use
of
Ockham's
William the
medieval
philosopher
expressed
argument
-7
"Do explain
not
entities
beyond However
what in
is
necessary argument
to is
this
between falls
badly thesis. of
attempt can in
throughout to another
a speech not
the
does speech
we allow gone
dependent notion of 8.
before
that
force
component
meaning
Differences
that Searle
are
by that of or
form For of
illocutionary may
adverbs example:
utterance.
For
(1) (2)
The since to the see use
must go.
adverb
go.
really is
adds verb to
force oriented,
to
the it is
But
Searle's
final it of
theory is
possible
reconcile force
speech
to
subtle
illocutionary
indicating
devices.
9.
Differences that
those but
acts
that
must
always
be performed
on the
For assert
perhaps
incorrect, merely
is an
disapproval
between for is
those their if
acts
that
an
extrathat to do the
majority
acts
fall
Searle's
theory.
speech
performatives
11.
Differences
between
those
acts
where
the
corresponding
-8-
illocutionary
not. 12. act. the Differences To illustrate
verb
has a performative
where
it
does
in
the this
style point
of
of
the
Searle
distinction This
performance
of
confiding. is drawing
essentially the extent generally something announcing the speaker is carried fact
a non-linguistic that determines implies that is or that out to at it to the mode the
Searle of the
attention act to
category
which
a select known,
make most is
some a few in
fact
previously The
known implication
confiding may be
done
whereas audience.
announcing
maximise
the
size
Searle's categories
1.
of
speech
acts
consists
of
five
broad
Assertives.
class to the
to
something's proposition.
Examples
assert,
2.
Directives. to
These
are
attempts Examples
by the include
speaker direct,
to
get
the and
hearer entreat.
3.
do something.
order
are
acts
that
commit
the include
speaker
to
some promise 4.
action.
Examples
commit,
express
the
sincerity own
condition; feelings.
Examples
Declaratives. change
are world,
acts
which e. g. I
about X to speaker be
a Y, has
henceforth to
known the
as Y,
assuming
authority
declaration.
1.4
The Formal
Theory
of
Speech
Acts
formal Veken
theory
of
speech
acts of
is
described
in force
Searle is
and
(1985).
The notion
illocutionary
central
-9-
to
theory. of literal performance the meaning utterance of force. an of an elementary in a given sentence context act of a is constitutes particular that
illocutionary
illocutionary
(Searle
Furthermore illocutionary
Veken
op. cit.
p. 7).
constituent components of
seven
1.
Point, type to of
the act.
or
purpose purpose of It
of an is
about that of
the
world.
distinguishes above.
2. The degree of
speech
strength the
of
the
As be for I
described stronger others. suggest. 3. The which command this the Mode of for
For
The
mode
of
achievement from a
is
that A is is
distinguishes is issued
a request of of the
a position position of
invocation mode of
under is the
achievement.
To summarise, collection of
the extraa
achievement additions
that act.
transform
into
a more
complex
speech
4.
Content are
The
conditions
by the
propositional to
has
similarly out it
non-sensical have
an action is not
was to to
apologize Veken
modus ponens"
(Searle
p. 16).
-10-
5.
to
the
6.
that
the
or
that
he intends
of have strength stronger
to
of
carry
the sincerity or
example
begging than
imploring
sincerity
condition
requesting.
The five
next
part
of
the
formal
theory
maintains
that
there
are
illocutionary 1.
point
presents of
point.
a proposition of the
representing
actual
state
affairs
2.
commissive if the
speaker by
propositional
3.
has the
point carry of
the the
speaker action
specified
propositional
utterance.
4.
point. world is
has the
declarative by the
a way specified
propositional
5. The point states expressive if of it the
content
point. expresses speaker.
utterance.
has the expressive feelings and
A statement the
psychological
these a base
five for
primitive their
points, of
we can acts
use to more
speech build
speech acts
extra idea
base. primitive
illocutionary
speech
-11-
1.
The
primitive
assertive illocutionary
force no
has mode
the of
assertive achievement
2. The primitive
and no propositional
directive illocutionary
conditions.
force has the
represents
3.
The
primitive
commissive illocutionary
force
has
the
that
the of
propositional action of
course
declaration,
conditions.
5.
The
illocutionary special
has
the
no other
illocutionary acts by
we can on five
operations identify
illocutionary operations: 1.
Searle
Veken
of
content have
Some
by which
content content
because to past
Thus report
assert.
2. The addition of forces forces with preparatory have the more conditions. preparatory Thus Some conditions remind it content thus remind has is
because
propositional before,
the
assert.
3.
of
sincerity conditions
conditions. to
It
is
possible forces
to to
illocutionary
-12-
For
example,
to
lament that
expressing asserting of
regret that P. of of
Thus
lamenting
restriction
the the
illocutionary from
differs namely of of
achievement 5. The of
persistence. increasing the or decreasing point the and forces with the which degree state form degrees of the
operations strength
sincerity from
differ their of is of
degree is
of
strength
achieved their is
and in
psychological a stronger
assert
defined the
the
produce to
commissives tableaux speech act There which which there and will will are
relationships
analysed. to be several in greater now. shortcomings detail Firstly, tableaux are no (for tableaux why in it of the formal Three, theory but that directives the might act resign, disapprove, bless, other be two so.
Chapter is
significant
semantic There
categories Searle
is
worthwhile identify
exploring
Veken
speech
verbs.
appoint, renounce,
repudiate,
consecrate,
christen,
abbreviate,
(Searle
The problem
Veken
op.
is
cit.
that
p. 205).
there is no significant
declaratives
-131.1 Figure The Semantic Tableau For (Searle and van der Veken op.
confess
argue
testify
r
lament
6
admit ...
assure
swear
...
complain
suggest
e= E=
of of of in of
Content Propositional Conditions Preparatory Mode of Achievement the Degree of Strength Conditions Sincerity
of
the
Illocutionary
Point
-14-
1.2 Figure The Semantic for Tableau (Searle and Van der Veken op.
swear
consent
assure
vow
promise
accept \Z+
pledge
threaten
commit
in of of
of
the
Illocutionary
Point
-151.3 Figure for The Semantic Tableau (Searle and Van der Veken op.
command
order
require
beg
ask
urge
demand
request
insist
tell
suggest
8=
of of of of
Conditions
of
the
Illocutionary
Point
-16-
relationships category some flat its added tableau meaning, are of on of are
between built to
Most entailment
of
the
speech
act of
relationship force.
Because
results, indeed
relationship the those of one and are speech of sort bear acts other or very out is from to a
almost in this
them
other in
example (to be
a theory
discussed it It is would
something agreed
consecrated, formula. of
some the
linguistic
procedures one in
specified, a round-about as of
make a case
similarly many of be
any
speech called
acts ritual
might 1972).
better
examining
the
tableaux
actually is
exist
there flat
are
because directly
assert. to
However
some of
misconceived. entails
act it
assert, whether
from
a speech have to a
Although it
entirely usual
possible for
sentence structured
an argument in the
be a
discourse.
For
example of for
defines paired
Consider I rang
you earlier
B: Oh,
I must
have been
-17-
A:
Oh. you, I went we've been in then. (an argument? some thought up her is that if claim ) which (6), is initially A's (7). If and brief model, There produce utterance, question. to an be a good hour and a half to two.
B: Mind A: Oh,
shopping
accepted position we accept also dialogue then is such then There indicate argument something approach
There verb follows: To
B disputes in
crumbles
accept
Schiffrin's makes
above is
However (6) is
(3)
an argument in at have in it
merely
model
as to
Had B not
as an assertion illocutionary be an
argument. by B.
being
appears verb
seriously of Searle.
are also Permit
the
further is
objections: by
the Van
act as
permit.
described
grant the
to
someone illocutionary
to
do
something denegation
is
to of
perform forbidding
it.
(Searle
Permit and class, directives exercise The get to thus is
Veken
the
op.
cit.
p. 202).
class of speech act verb act for verbs this for
must namely
upon yet
speech at the
semantic It tableau is is a of
permit
absent. in the
locate for
group, while
an attempt about
something the
neutral
Directives
have content
also
capable content.
Thus by that
a point direct, as to
made I
clearer
weaker stating
suggest
am merely
-18-
how the is
hearer
no claims
about
whether
Consider
Lecturer: article.
a suggestion Unknown to
You might
is
as the
to
how the
of
lecturer by the
upon
notice it P is is then
not to
proved
permission P, and
a suggestion form of by
to suggest direct
because to the
merely permit
entailed
up request
from does
namely permit,
example
Lecturer: Student:
Could I'm
this
a lecture
come back
the
later.
photocopier the certain seen but not not is student societies, to lose infelicitous. form leaves p. 201), up the of able If I of us suggest with the semantic authority. to grant to then that act the tell. difference tableau, Being permission issue my whole is forbid an order approach highly and process. so and therefore to not available knows the this, for but use the is because lecturer given so the
example, still over doesn't. the is Insist lecturer turned is entail and and Van
response
face.
Effectively
was
not
According
order, is of
order
entails entails
were
able one
to
example
verbs
as permit, categorisation
Consider:
(11):
In (11),
You must
1 am not
remove
making
your
bag from
I
the
fire
exit.
pointing out an
an order,
am merely
-19-
if
the
is
not
then
it
is
not It
I an der
my duty is also
telling telling
definition
speech
to
do something give
is
to
direct of
him in refusal.
not
option p. 200).
of me.
Veken
hearer chooses speech tell
cit.
refusal, There
after appear to
all be
my fault forms I it
been
might and
someone don't I
something them
effectively when
point
an obligation I should interest in the sense which argue In pointing "By exit. my "
obligation outcome by of
no personal is tell
Searle,
a deontic Three, an
operator I shall
is
speaker remove
1.5
Indirect
Speech
Acts
explanation speech indicators to perform speech and no what are Van der act is for
of
indirect
an utterance one kind type is of of that model as to be whole of used. speech arguments
another acts
indirect Searle
outlined why in
above indirect
provides and
acts
used
the
important
how
devoted examine
to some
the of
problems
surrounding
them
this
introductory
section.
Speech
Act
Theory
has frequently
been
attacked
because
of
its
-20-
to
account
for
indirect examine
speech these
acts,
see
for in
(1983)
and I shall
arguments
on modal
indirect can. Of as
speech the
acts,
this he says
another
illocution a request
propositional The
both and
a request of
more
depth of
Chapter section
modal (Searle
indirect of the
acts case
includes in
an analysis Six):
(examined
detail
Chapter
(12) (13)
Searle into above the must ten
X: Y:
lets
go to to
the
the study
movies for
tonight. an exam.
of Y's indirect to Y which speech elicits act the in response is as acts I shall as third a it of in
I have
down
breaks steps:
comprehension X makes
firstly and
a proposal that
secondly
Y is
accordance is one
with
claim
speech work
needs of
much language
into indirect
respectable speech
usage.
Searle's conventionality
on the thesis
The certain
on the
assumption of certain
count attempts
acts
by
explain
presented be
several
discussed it is
detail exactly
that
clear
-21-
is then
meant they
It and is
by conventions. suggest
customary interrogative
If such
request forms.
conventions as:
by using
mean customs
of
usage,
rules
to
certain
declarative
"please" request.
indicates
that
regarding
postsentential
making
that
noise,
please?
you able
but thesis and the
do A, please?
is that not. there The is main no of for objection stated the the to connection speakers distribution that of the
(14)
is
acceptable,
psychological
states
to
provide
an explanation
"please". summarising it Searle's would speech puts acts. forward The be acts. the ambiguity meanings not indirect standardized to direct thesis be ambiguity thesis and at thus all, use indirect) form. is Sadock incorporated His theory, also can presents be thesis is the but of the does sets the to view explain that contribution useful to to look speech at two act theory
alternate
may have such In that computed that about the would that a utterances this it
standardized literal utterance not out within arguments like certain treated op. cit. as pp. have to a and
linguistic an
fact be more
cases section
(Sadock pp.
Harnish
176-183).
theory call it
is the
presented
(op.
cit.
p.
standardization
-22-
the
mutual
that hearer
intent working-out
immediately, process.
(Bach
Because relation because describe inferential It speech rival theory indirect act may be is acts of to of it
and Harnish
the the the in theory largely that
op.
cit.
of
p. 192).
the on standardization in it examine this in thesis, isolation, Bach and thesis and I in also will
difficulty section of
Harnish's
speech of act
because speech in
its theory
treatment under
of attack Their
particular in from
by
Chapter the or he an
interpreted (1988)
simply makes
the
direct
indirect
He repair
describes which
a discourse
phenomenon as below:
called
fourth
position
A:
B: Response A: Query of
statement.
response. (Oh, I thought statement is it as you meant (16) is X). speech the Then, in indirect of his act,
B: Repair the
that
initial
an indirect and
direct is
interpretation to take
arises, mistake
response, speech
and thus
answering Schegloff is
treating the
However (a request)
treated,
as what will
as
a in
pre-sequence,
going
to
that
meeting?
according
-23-
either
a request
or as
a question, a not
but
in
the
it
misinterpreted misinterpretation speech contrary standardization assumes himself was that know act theory
does then
On support
Schegloff's thesis there that his the category Mrs. mother notion in its is
is
the
expecting
provide
some
questionable.
going
to
that
meeting?
a question other
to
say (21b)
on the be
B is make
any to
new the
appeal with
speaker and
hearer, when of as
some
notion speech
certain The
criticism
loses
approach is of
analysis problem
considered indirect
in up in
Chapter Chapter
speech
1.6
A Critique
of
Searle's
Theory
of
Speech
Acts
there
are
several
weak points
and problems
with
sentential in
of
Searle's it does
seems
to
be
between
speech
acts
which a that
is
related uniform
to
the
first, on
is his for
imposed acts
structure artificial,
analysis
is
somewhat
-24-
example, and
in
the Veken
analysis
of
speech is
acts
(Searle as an is be a
Van der
presented an argument
and yet of to
would
discourse be
whereas
could For
considered further 1990). 3. The hold permit directives semantic describe hence complete entailment 4. The theory the formal it reliance for
a sentence of this
based see
discussion
and
Smith
in
the for
formal example
theory the
not
does
appear it
in cannot
the
semantic fit
of the to
be made to it is not
into possible
between as a
declaratives, and to
Austin's context
speech of
does acts,
speech
and
done
for of
the
use
of act
speech
remains
problem
unexplored.
"levels perhaps than theory of a a abstraction" cognitive philosophical is not or with even one, plausible The accept an in marker away to when abstract marker utterance act a theory of
theory.
This problem
the then of
philosophical it is also
cognitively "levels Searle's utterance interpreting of reveal generating speech the used says utterance act level to very is politeness the
a philosophical problem is be act. act, must be act. start the at the that a level For if
problem. we at
theory, is decoded an in
there
must
which
a speech speech
example,
indirect the
encoded
utterance speech
perform little
about
particular
chosen).
-25-
7.
final how do
problem,
in
part
to with theory, at
the
previous
problems detail
throughout
1.7
Sadock's
Linguistic
Approach
to
Speech
Acts
A put
somewhat by
to on
speech linguistic
act
theory structure.
has
been Sadock
forward
attempts the
to
speech thesis
act is
built view
on that
literal
Sadock analysing
distinct
grammatical required -a
exhibit thesis:
"force-ambiguity", 1. Whimperatives
support sentence
whimperative
modal
{subjunctive} { negative }
you VP?
For
leave
you take
that is is as not
you?
structure underlie for their underlying imperatives. evidence indirect (again types he in of that usage, in evidence examines the To these and their to the and
also
this forms
behave do
Sadock
ambiguity of words
"please"
imperatives
whimperatives.
Please Would
shut
the
you please to
appears verbs in
be a correspondence
imperatives
and whimperatives.
correspondence
-26-
also
is
added
post-sententially.
please. the door, please. forms you ) are requests but not in questions. at least He four of whimperatives:
Second,
Sadock
considers VP modal
(please)
(please)
and attempts states respects (30a) (30b)* (31a) (31b)* (32a) (32b)* (33) that
to
they
they
behave 112).
like
questions
(Sadock
When will Wash the When will Wash the Tell Tell
car,
or don't
you know?
or don't car,
you know?
by any chance,
you
do
the
presented conjoined
here to
is
that
certain
types cannot be
of so
(1979) be to
Harnish When
The
careful )
how
you
want )
to
know
imperatives
but
not
car,
the
whimperative
there
(Green responses
and not
response only
they
a verbal the
response fractured
regarding
seems
-27-
of
the
use of
For
example:
car car
lawn? dishes?
across presented of the here
do the
forward evidence
when in
doesn't. with
more
for
use
connectives
some
hidden
linguistic
2. or:
Impositives Sadock's
take
the
form here
of: is
theory
view
impositives with
must
be refused
a reason
animosity).
Unfortunately
cut. queclaratives such such likes as: as: such as: Does anyone shoot. discovered he?.
approach,
categories
and Tag-questions:
there presented appear some data
spinach
with to be
1.8
The Inferential
Approach
To Speech
Act
Theory
to (1979) set
act this
has
been
examining schema
Harnish inferences
a speech in
involved
deciphering
speech
speech
speech
speech
inferences
involve
factors:
content,
communicative
intentions.
The speech
1) that when The
act
schema is
based
upon
(LP).
three
This
presumptions:
is the mutual and belief that can
a common
language, (e)
Speaker
an expression
Hearer(H)
-28-
identify e in the
what
S is
saying, (L)
given and
the any
of
common
language
background share probably 2) that with about speak helps The the
Without are
belief would
they and
language. This e in is L he do not the is assumption doing beliefs speakers fact from that some so
Communicative whenever
speaker
some
recognizable
have that
do believe it is
this act
identify
illocutionary
utterance. 3) belief then Using schema how the The utterance meant their ambiguity presumption that be e is operative, by S. which contextual take the these (Bach hearer hearer e. something shared in to The Presumption that S is if in of Literalness eS (PL). could be This is the mutual literally
speaking
speaking
and
Harnish p. 21)
a speech to
act
describe
may H,
By the by
linguistic that
e and
something of
e means amount
one
Harnish
interpretations (MCBs).
H's
S is
uttering ...
a) e means b) c) S means
S means S means
that
... that
by e. H infers that U(P), that where S means U is ... by e, H can determine and P is its
saying
some utterance
propositional
content.
-29-
Given has i. e. to
that
H has
inferred S is
that
S is
saying literally
that
U(P), and
H directly,
now
determine
whether
speaking
S means P with Si: S2: S3: S4: S5: S6: S is uttering ...
force
F.
To summarise:
S means S is S, if S could S is
saying
is P.
F-ing
that
P.
F-ing
schema and
to
include
are:
that
P.
such
gives
identifying in more
acts.
described
detail
The psychological if it it is
speech
act
above
is
upon to interpret
the see
plausibility and if
direct
as an indirect speech
propose distinguish
an
speech
Conventional acts as
Communicative constatives,
speech
subdivided
directives,
commissives
thrust even
of
argument fine
on
the
schema,
though
interprets out.
worked a exact
speech
schema it
model
speech
acts
be
hearer the
speech
schema
is
only
bones
of
strategy:
-30-
That attests
all subtlety,
their not
ingredients to their
1979, p. 93)
We
suggest
that mutually
every
interpersonal rules
involve(s) persons
Bach speech particularly speech Can you that hearer deals for the act pass usual can with their and
recognised of situations.
some is attempt in
... to
and types
also a way
Harnish in
to
acts
concerned schema. the These salt? schema jump indirect schema, of S's having indirect having that must be thesis by the look to
acts
do not use of of
speech
act,
of
schema
poses
a problem then,
and intent
it. forms
ambiguous attempt to
Bach
They
possible does
standardization It is only
illocutions
standardized. by a mutual
that
violate its
words, particular
a mutual S's
context,
indirect.
Another
aspect
of
speech
act
theory
addressed
by
Bach
and
-31-
of
how speech
act
are and
a speech consists of
production of nine
beliefs of the
nature
2.
3.
S forms
S attempts various
a series
to intents.
of
pragmatic
the
intents.
of fulfilling these
predict
consequences
4. 5.
of
each
intent intent
is
assessed. PI is formed. of PI
of
pragmatic linguistic
to intent likely ei is predict with
6. A variety
7. S attempts
expressions
the each likelihood expression. ei is
are
formed.
S's
fulfilling
expression uttered.
selected.
Expression
approach point of
to view
act of in
theory its
has
an to and
from
attempt
of
inference
speech
acts, to
the flesh
freely bare
admit
much still
be done to
outline
1.9
Some Criticisms
of
Speech Act
Theory
Speech of the
Act
Theory
is levelled
not
without at by speech
its
however have
and
many
arisen acts
caused speech
attacked on which to the are map mood mood pose form a short
two
there
that For
indicative imperative
assertive
speech
whereas indirect
(this this
happen
very
-32-
If in
it
proves
to
relate
form resort
to
a systematic
away desirable.
problem indirection to
a systematic it takes.
reasons it
is
used to
be possible because if
different infinite to
there
number recognise
then
it indirectly. for
becomes
(1983)
example, assumption
suggests that
that
perhaps have of
we
fundamental should
instead in "levels at in
another
specifying If
problem is is no
there act
no point This
map out us to
speech of act
types. acts
either our
speech actually
altogether is.
modify
a speech
suggests the
that that
the
notion
of act
force be viewed be
could as
be an in
idea
a speech
on a context sets of
and that
a context
understood knowledge
propositions
and so
speaker An
that speaker
p is
a function not
from
a to
S is in which that
committed committed
S is p.
belief p is
promise S of
a function to in
from bringing
where state S is
iii) An which state H is
committed described
about one in
affairs
p,
into
so committed.
order H of so that is affairs required. not p is a function by by from S to p, a context about one in in the which
required described
bring into
(Levinson Levinson's
-33-
we
reject
of
force
then
there
is
a wide
gap
no
what the
how
derived of us no
from
utterances as
going
theory language
large
a certain
appeal
a speech etc.
in these
terms sets
beliefs, perhaps as an
speech certain
abstract
linguistic by the
theory act onto speech features forces, Perhaps are as not an theory
able
should in
concerned systematic
mapping incorporating Certain certain indicates linguistic illocutionary propositions For an example, indicator
form acts do
part
of
seem for it
example: is an the
indication of
components is used
make many
up the
please of thus
requests is
which
obligatory
a request, On the such as other a hint, might whereas some be the possibility A second
when
making of
presence
using of as
that the
instead, the
giving (I
hearer this
option
implicitly
explore
Chapter on
speech If
study act is or
of
discourse roughly
we accept (and it
the is
equates
a sentence
clear
-34-
be
the has
then of
if
we are
to then
accept we must of
the
idea
that to
theory
discourse has no
which
arise,
theories This
incompatible further in
with Chapter
issue
explored
also
that
speech
act
theory
may come
to
be
a "more a sense
pragmatic to do, by
complexity
factors
determine
a given
act.
One of originated difficult has been to the as problems an attempt truth by of speech to values wider act theory the certain set artificial of these and as of is that of of although why sentences, including and their the own are act still it it is it
answer to
problem types
assign
adopted
a much
disciplines intelligence
linguistics, psychology questions asked, theory problems there the more thrown Firstly, act we from formulate Both act are problem general up the is or of about
sets
less should
philosophical of speech
notions (Holdcroft
indirect of speech
speech acts.
incorporated
correct question
act the
we
Searle general It
"some
of
whether
there
to
argue the
"we
just
do
philosophers prop up
to
avoid
philosophical
-35-
the
of
the
meaning has
speech act
theory are at
the Added
grammatical empirical
examine
see
whether This
speech that
suggests
speech
theory
1.10
Computational
Models
of
Speech Acts
Speech Natural success, new insights One Allen collected information was interested
act
theory
in
Intelligence degrees of
Language but
Processing
up new problems
and provide
theory. was that of Allen of (1983), the of see also Allen and he more
(1987)
phenomenon provided
clerk
the 10.
Montreal
train
leave?
p107). made three rational plans assumptions: agents to who are their capable goals. the perform obstacles plans of other of forming
Allen are
and executing ii) They agents iii) They agent's On this basis, are often
achieve of the
capable
inferring agent to
from are
observing capable of
detecting
plan. the clerk he might was able inferred be useful to the to reply plan with of gate the the additional patron to and his
because that it
add the
number
to
be able to
to
play
the
role
of and takes
the
clerk,
be able
represent (1983,
plans p. 117)
of
a set. of
parameters
(possibly
following
classes:
-36-
i)
Preconditions action's
- conditions is to
should
be true
if
the
execution -
ii)
Effects successful
conditions execution of
true
after
the
the of
iii)
Body -a level.
specification
the
a more
detailed
In type.
this The
way, action
a speech of
act
type is: P) P)
may be
represented
as
an
action
informing Hearer,
Know(Hearer, P)
Know(Hearer,
body:
Mutually
believe(Hearer,
Speaker(Want,
can
represented onto
as a goal
of
actions state
mapping as a a plans
initial that of
state is
being to in
construct which
action execute
system
able able
to to
reason
the
two
system:
(planning someone
a train) So,
presented
an utterance
to of
Windsor? all parses attempts such it the to utterance assign into possible mood. fit to it a semantic act the It level
representation types to it
then
criteria
a request plan
into
a the
by using sub-goals.
expand
called to
plan speaker
used
what
achieve
making Then
expansions chaining
make happens
alternatives identified.
the plan, The reply the
plan
has been
identified its execution.
system into
now
detects
any any
takes
consideration
-37-
perceived
Speech marrying plan. some
obstacles.
act recognition expectations a certain integrate notion go some it is of appeal speech plan in Allen's and to acts system takes to the form because Gricean applied the that uses the of form a coherent it goes of
length not to
maxim plan
Also be Consider
used
explain
some
indirect
the
nearest
telephone
box
is?
round
approach a request (41) mind
the
it
corner
is not
on your
difficult
left.
to rather to see than understand (probably clear why how a
a plan perceived In
for
we make asking
when
question becomes
the
telephone).
indirectly. is not without the clear its problems plan this (1985) however. are The domain could a goes
determine no means
an unlimited
developed which
system some of be
modifying
approach and
discourse discussed An
speech
the
attempt He called
(1985). Planner.
KAMP's
devices. The
The speech
modelled
informing.
a hierarchical of plans,
system
that
uses
procedural from of
network. utterances,
question
intentions Linguistic
UNIVERSITY UBRARY LEEDS
results actions
agent
particular
a hierarchy
-38-
levels: i) ii) iii) iv) The starting utterance level pump attached goal. from to Illocutionary Surface Concept Utterance levels the but speech activation acts. are expanded downwards acts illocutionary level that the is that top goal and within ending acts might currently level to the up comes be to the goal a (Rob) Then a John request does not the planner with the remove pump would series should sub-goal that know John what is the top the is be of be acts acts such such as INFORM and REQUEST. ASK.
as ASSERT, and
COMMAND and
DESCRIBE
POINT.
apprentice is expanded
(John). into
However action
carry the
(this PL)
expanding tool is
sub-goal
a certain John tool, the use and so platform (and subgoals of cycle each acts of
required, that do
what anything
knows about
John
does
remove about
possibly are
plan-generation of expansion
description it with
grammar, of surface
which
schematic in
grammatical the
Filling
grammatical
produces
the
final
utterance.
and
Appelt's in
work AI.
are
of
the
approach up us more
Although these
throwing give
than
answer, theory.
important to
theory value be
pragmatic illustrates
because
reasonably
interpreted
-39-
speech
acts. give
However,
if
they
nothing complexity
else, of
us some insight
perhaps in
serves
that theory
to that
assume, there
as is as
happen reliable
classical way of
utilising mistaken.
as a pointer the from as the idea
grammatical
indicators
speech
work to an speech
act
also act
type
acts
is
to that
important process of
a speech ones
might by
perhaps Grice by an
Grice
various any
elevated of The
principle relation amount and The maxim the maxim and of not of of
quantity, us to us
maxim quality
maxim is
exhorts insufficient be
that
which states us to
we should
perspicuous. is not at all but obvious lets By using the of acts in into that maxim of what consider an these for maxims a moment speech that we speech indicates conventional is not states are to
theory, acts.
problem we are we
indirect
immediately avoid
manner If of
acts, why to
be acts
To reply a certain
situation use an
simple a direct of
indirect must in
theory chosen
why
indirect
preference.
to
of
act
a certain clearly
speech rules
There
-40-
how
speech
acts
fit respect
into to is
and there
are
many
with if
a question also it
considered to
an answer is that
answer particular
clearly is
response asked of
indirectly.
problem in
be faced
up to in
discourse.
To argue Ockham's
these is to
when examining
speech
context
discourse.
-41-
2.
Discourse
Structure
2.1
Introduction
structure
is in
concerned discourse
with is
the
of
how
refers or more
to
any body
between such
speakers. encounter in
includes social
as one might
examples
between certain in
speakers
a somewhat in
nature. conversation
things
a social of
because
the the
interaction consultation So the there Another formal analysed issue is set of it of is: is
interview
to
those
and so on. in the to analysis discourse no less of discourse is whether it is. the be
structure is
and if important
so what is
perhaps in
whether can
discourse
situation
same way as say social that all there forms that of each is
assuming to
a formal
universal discourse
types layout?
own variation
structural Clearly
to
speech
act
theory some
followed explanation.
by
an The it
structure us to
needs
whether act
indeed
desirable,
theory goes
question of that
this he
relationship called
when carrying
expositives: Expositives expounding the clarifying that are of used in acts of exposition of involving arguments, We have these the and said are
views, of
the
conducting and of
usages
references. as to whether
repeatedly
we may dispute
-42-
not acts
or
commissive ...
expositives]
exchange.
1962, p. 161). made reference when cataloguing performative to the to the discourse in serve the structure illocutionary to relate element acts: the of
variations
expressions rest of
discourse.
1979 p. 6). discourse final the the structure theory. question: element Indeed "Could in of illocutionary work a set of of acts (Searle rules constitutive is 1986) for
a later
answer
we have
in speech way
we have "no".
a set
a definite of that if
on speech threaten
theory force
would
two
wrong more
and if coherent
that
our
theory
theory. case, in
Levinson particular, in
speech
acts,
the of
light
analysis
approach
Schegloff
(Levinson
section discourse of
first
of
all is
approach
which
The second
approach
analysis others,
which see
developed (Schegloff
approaches to some
description
there and
Coulthard are
(Sinclair that
and describe
Coulthard discourse
there
-43-
markers of Sinclair
rather and
than
speech
acts work).
(see
section
2.2
for
a description
Coulthard's
on
the
other
hand
to
be for
exploring structure
relationship
act
theory
and
we need to
ask three
fundamental
questions:
1.
Is
there
to
or the
is
it
merely
an
problems
speech on seems
because acts
aspects
bearing It
Chapter no (see
somewhat to discourse.
structure Chapter
several problems
indicate theory.
are
relationship
between
and
speech
2. to act
The
second
is
assuming
that
there
is
discourse theory, to
compatible speech speech act because Furthermore, theories explanation but also how by of can how it act
way
this some
question sort of
theory as
relational
aspect
allow is
for
theory
of
then only
there to other
speech that
explained
be paired It
constrains surface
second. is
one
preferred of analysis,
notion
preference but is
conventional
If
we accept
that
speech
act
theory
is
an integral
part
of
an
-44-
explanation certain speech Coulthard discourse. conversational conversational speech structure developed expressed. dialogue, exchanges as pedagogic Thus explanation of speech if we act aspects act
of
structure organization is strictly level the rules almost because with catered
we
must operate
also
accept
theory. model At
in
speech govern
level
individual Coulthard in
and
Sinclair at higher
relates
structure, 2.2)
considerations
to
have
an
of act
least other
the
integrally stand in as
However
is
to
must at
some level
some
3.
The
third and
is
assuming to what
that be is
there
is
structure incompatible
to
proves then
act
speech example
approach
puts
the
doubt,
scrutiny. speech of
be capable currently
same sort
problems
that
speech
theory
2.3
describes at best
of
Although
insight For
into example,
Allen's
model of
a possible Litman
one of
insight
described
conversational
analysis.
-45-
2.2
Linguistic
Approaches
to
Discourse
Structure
Discourse
Analysis
Levinson analysis op. cit. Sinclair discourse Sinclair classroom with five p is
states acts
that (or
the related
work
in
discourse (Levinson
notions) at the
286). and
However
we look for
more
closely the
work
of
Coulthard and
(1975)
example,
between clear. of
analysis to analyse
propose levels
analysis of
series ordered
transactions. of the
exchanges
exchange
Ma
medial
exchange
(Sinclair The parentheses transaction exchange. boundary the also meat known
op.
cit., is
p. 25) optional, a preliminary exchanges The medial teacher and are so the and smallest medial
a unit of at
least
as teaching are
exchanges. themselves broken down further consists and optional of an into moves,
classroom
exchange response
initiation move.
by an optional
feedback
a response response.
acts
and finally
The moves
provide
themselves level
the
one and
pupils
or more
which
form
the analysis.
primitive Acts
may
markers even
short
concerned
controlling
discourse,
example
-46-
called pupil
nomination as
which
to
enable
the
to
nominate group
a has
informational informatives
It not warn work
acts
called
and
is
entirely against
speech speech
Indeed closely
own
We are an
interested
other
hand]
in in
the the
function discourse
of
utterance the it
an utterance
sort is
of
questions to
whether is
a response, is intended
a response in the
whether
(Holdcroft
arises from by is:
1990).
of discourse in acts with that and there or there only might
proposed theory
Sinclair to what
three of
distinct is
discourse Of these,
them
a temptation their
informative but
directive is a manyFor acts: the question, that and the take the the with as the which a way be
counterparts relationship the speech check act clue and acts of act has set the
there
to-many example, elicitation, discourse state(ment) discourse account discourse teacher their an
discourse the
acts.
question clue
figures
discourse
amongst by
realised
command. to
discourse for
example after
is
because to act
occurs is
for the
the
pupils discourse
is
to
follow.
heavily
whereas independent
have
context,
-47-
in
attempting
of
the
only rigidly of
structured. participants and also any the for point. Sinclair example,
the
discourse, at map
take not
control to
be easy
Coulthard telephone
model
situations, of
tailor example
conversation
attempts
two people
made to for several First small of
equal
their
status.
model just levels the the lowest subclass she be called somewhat to to such of any an the
(1981) were at
made
different all at to
level of
act, she
what would
particles" in is
categorisation complex utterance treatment "Requests such as: Can interaction see
appears
for I
a more theory,
interesting as speech it
an attempt includes
categorise
a type pairs
indirect as
also
conversational
accuse/excuse
inform/comment.
At existing i)
the
level
of
following
to
the
list
of
ii)
which
hold
up the
topic
presented
in
iii)
re-opening challenged
which
re-open other.
a move that
has
been
some way or
moves,
iv)
which acts
allow to enlarge
the
of
comment
Burton boundary
also exchanges
recognises and
two
types
of
exchanges: exchanges.
explicit Boundary
conversational
-48-
mark
the
of
each
whereas make up a
modifications to describe An by a
by Burton of
example, by of
be used Schiffrin
structure could
an argument
proposed in terms
(1985). countered
argument challenging
At exchange: (Burton that
be described followed
of
a move
move,
the level
up by a supportive
Burton and
move,
and so on.
two types exchanges exchanges while or of
exchanges,
boundary The at
exchanges
boundary the
exchanges
optional
place
openings with an by
begin
opening one or
followed level is
supportive as that
essentially original
Coulthard's
Conversational
Analysis
on the
other of which
was of
Sacks, Schegloff
Schegloff (1972)
Jefferson Pomerantz
Sacks
(1973),
of pair,
the
conversational
analysis
approach
is between
perhaps pairs
a seemingly of
obvious
relationship include
Examples
adjacency
pairs
question-answer
and offer-acceptance. Schegloff adjacency are: i) ii) iii) iv) adjacent produced ordered typed, requires second or by different as a first so that part a speakers and a second particular second offers require require first (or range acceptances greetings, part part of and Sacks pairs are (1973) give a more precise of two definition: that
sequences
utterances
a particular parts) e. g.
rejections,
greetings
and so on. Additionally, uttered, the when speaker the first stop part of an adjacency and the next pair has been must
must
speaking
speaker
-49-
at
produce
the
second is the
of
the the
adjacency two
pair. are
utterances of the
components
adjacency as
what
Schegloff
(1972)
describes
sequences: A: B:
A:
I'd In
No,
like
a Farnborough
number
please.
Hampshire?
Kent.
name? pair, but another adjacency sequences Levinson adjacency p. 306) suggests the pair are (1983) pairs that idea (2) not for are the of that
inserted just
between. pair in
describes between of
adjacency
a criterion is
and predictable second states rule if it is part that that to that fails what
expectations. then it
appear,
is
noticeably sets up is
conditional that
relevance say a question discourse, to. two parts This rhetorical above, occurs and is
formation answer of
must but
receive it is
of
an
pair pose
are
speakers. we consider
criterion
few problems
model,
described
beginning about
a class-room is
For
a statement
to
follow.
example, (rhetorical) it wrong? that speech it the act is It then a seminar question: This topic theory not about I "question" of the speech want to is act ask not theory a could question, a "I to the part only is start Did question believe explain whole of an
with Searle as
the get
seminar and it as
Searle why". of
wrong,
a sense, is to
follow. but
adjacency conversation
pair, and
analysis turn
about rigidly
not
seminars,
-50-
defined. Coulthard
However is not
the that
classroom far
situation from
by Sinclair
and
removed is that
The third first must except relationship relationship speech act part
is
ordered
as a pair
adjacency our a
be ordered to
second. in
two parts
conventional
is
that
the a
are
typed
so that part.
a As
requires
second
first
part
is
a small will
or cease,
at it in
concept
describe that is
organization attraction.
conversation (Levinson
Again, rests second standing, range least of one according on the parts he notion to
principal
op.
cit.
to
p. 306).
the concept organization. of is at notion is an adjacency a ranking least is that one of the adjacency all are pair
the
states
preferred
seconds Whereas
are is by
structurally marked by
alternative marked
perhaps as is given
delay with an
a particle
such
given
account the
a dispreferred alternative
alternative may be
Additionally, indirect or
the
matching of it needs
of
parts in of
language gives
example clearly
use
further
top
of there
what are in
is
essentially level
higher
four
turns
a conversation.
and pre-sequences.
(Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks 1977) is a mechanism
-51-
that or
deals even
with
the
correction Repair
of
misunderstandings,
speaker someone of
repairable the
(repair
than might
speaker
repairable
item).
An example
a living? from a classroom repair used to refer to dialogue make the to both has first a part kinds
of
The which
above is
utterance
second clearer. of
turn. a
part
a self-initiated is
of
Pre-sequence
and a certain a kind
certain
that that type
turns
For turn
sequence is for
containing
prefigures
e. g.
A: B:
Hey! Uh?
(8)
A:
the
grass. include pre-invitations, to that be sets followed the where by ground an for
pre-sequences with is
starts
a greeting, a question
a ticket
for
the
concert
here?
B: Yes, A:
type
indeed. please.
described by is Terasaki exactly For (1976) as its is the name
Two seats
of
pre-sequence A that
announcement.
example:
Guess
what.
(13) (14)
In there
for
lunch
again.
structures structures of the described called exchanges above, overall within a
some
organisations specific
organise
a beginning
sequence of the
in
telephone conversation
and in the is
topic
-52-
which After to
is
free first
from
topical
constraints of
arising topics
from which
the
topic
come a series
previous
closing
topics.
down a topic Finally down the the are local procedures is the that closing Closing closed important down to
Mechanisms can section, sections without say, and operate which must one also be of
there
conversation. is
having undue
must
A closing
sequence
typically i)
contains a closing of
following: down of some topic giving which regards may to include other the family
making members
arrangements,
etc.
ii) iii)
pre-closing a typing
items of
such (if
as:
right,
a call
appropriate)
checking exchange
have al. of of
been to
to units. (1985) to
apply
the
ideas of to
Houtkoop conversational
ideas
larger
distinguish who is
in
their
closed and
there
is there
speaker
holding type
a negotiation of
on the the
The
closed
DUs places
conversational p. 601):
Mazeland
i)
speaker
is
expected unit
to
continue marks
a DU until DU completion
constructional
which
the
around
turn-constructional
iii)
If
there
is
speaker
transition there is
at
point
which for
is the
marked primary
as DU-incomplete, speaker(PS) to
become the
-53-
After operative
end the
of
the next
DU, DU is
the
turn
taking
model
becomes
started.
higher
level
based in
by Polanyi as of the
which
accomplish
Although be at odds
approaches other,
to there at
appear they
to share
example,
higher a
advocate model is
hierarchical hierarchical
an approach differences
hierarchical. in been model. Even appears approaches although theory, it take is not to down the models
defined,
at
the
lowest that
levels is
of not at of
the first
boundary
such they
suggest
were
account
come to
resemble
the
the
discourse
approach incredible
the
flexibility between
language. two
criticisms might
something
the
satisfactory. There approaches is that another is most area of common ground appears between to the have two gone
striking
and yet
-54-
totally model is
undocumented. the
At
the
heart
of
the
Sinclair
and
Coulthard
move sequence: (Response) that feedback a this said, in (Feedback) order element cycle to tailor their approach (see and and then to open
should of
above), response.
basic
B responds The
possibly
the
himself. the
has at part
description
as the
as the these
part,
a remarkable two
similarity are
the
approaches
so much at
2.3
Computational
Models
of
Discourse
Structure
of
the
most
ambitious
to
build
discourse
structure
Reichman
(1985).
discourse a series
(specifically, of functionally
interspersed
conversational
op.
support a topic
to
a claim
subject previous
of models
analysis
discourse
analysis of
because boundaries
merely
descriptions
discourse
structure op. cit.
imposes space
a further (Reichman by
context it be
the that
spaces
-55-
then
goes
on to
describe above
that
claims
detailed, Sinclair
appear in her
Coulthard's
by Allen
(1983)
in
his
planin a of
understanding, by Litman a
Allen's
recognition assumption of
and
the
surface
rule-governed.
p. 15). out plan analysis (known people of the Plans is the using knowledge plans), plans", dialogue between in it known and a the Chapter about also as data plans One,
system of
structure to
plans "things
as domain do with
cope using
previous
relationships have
been described
some explanation.
deals are with a sort of that part having of a
there plans, is
meta-plans
specifying specified as
plans
speech
used
effects
which which
specify
specify
minimum
requirements
INTRODUCE-PLAN
DECOMPOSITION: EFFECTS:
CONSTRAINTS:
(Litman
op.
cit. is
REQUEST
-56-
WANT
is
based and
on the will
assumption therefore
is a
cojoint in STEP
agent to
marked
action
specify
be
used
and corrections. executing recognizer. below top of it, of all the plans with modifying.
a dialogue,
stack
maintained
meta-plans meta-plans
approach that it
is
very
there have
are
some
does
the
plan
recognizer
Secondly,
housekeeping regularity is
clear open by
abandoned For
plans
example, such
introduced or That
reminds is very to
first dropped it
speaker is
likely
be effort
the for
when to
remove
from
stack.
2.4
Other
Artificial
Intelligence
Approaches
to
Discourse
of
the use
early of
work
in
discourse frame be is
frames
that of These
a class of
may have
must
slot.
Additionally, This
may have
them procedural
information.
-57-
procedural becomes obtain Related Because object, explicitly slot particular the frame filled the
may
specify as an
what
has
to
be
done
if or
the how
slot to
slot together
grouped
aspects it
a frame whether
about or not
dialogue, on the
able
based
Abelson
an
of based
language
Firstly, of describing
semantic all
primitives actions
semantic
(1991) the
PTRANS is new
means semantic
information Schank
represented
independent
idea
was called of
conceptual
dependency
which in
was such
a a is
meaning
language from
a way that
the are
Conceptual primitives of
dependency corresponding
the
sentence,
combinations up using
sentence
units.
dependencies primitive modifiers resulted what of Schank actions was the she causes.
primitives described restaurant put
four
of
actions in
a small actions
(verbs),
were
put
into
a data situation
a a of of
which a
a stereotyped or taking
a ride gave
on
primitives
together
an overall
description
-58-
the
events in
that
typically
take
place
a script. finding
Thus a
eating table,
a restaurant eating
also script, There the script,
contained the
had for
ordering,
The script in the script. of the the and money it
meal,
props
paying
which
and leaving.
were the objects and menus by that in a
appeared restaurant participants cooks such script, more that For and even in as
tables, roles
were
taken
the and
such meal.
fact
restaurant such
had was
advantage to
a description from a
enabled
a story. restaurant
someone that
we can explicitly in
they
down the
at
table this
though
is
not
mentioned. Artificial
time
conceptual (1975)
are are
and
Abelson
system
using about
scripts
up could
questions
a story
dinner.
He ordered home.
teriyaki.
he went could
such
as:
where
the
script
may
be
incomplete, John
He waited
for
ages
to
be served.
He got
mad and left. A script (16) One called attempted suffered it only system Did of SAM to from worked A telling could John the eat more then his correctly meal? programs that used scripts 1978) was which it in that answer a question such as
successful
(Script
Applier of
Mechanism) newspaper
(Cullingford stories.
script of
whole
idea
-59-
by Dreyfus
Real
(1979
stories
p. 43).
pose In a script on the a bus the a further ... story trip what itself. contains But... the journey, the story anyone problem counts For the [that] passenger while as for the Schank's relevant a script that would simply it might not the be took be a
depends describes
example fact
thanks in
driver. in which
a story of
part
a longer if not
crucially misanthrope
concerned before.
thanked
A (1978) the
more which
plan
and
goal to of the
based
system
was
written by in an
by reasoning the
Wilensky about His for stories, fulfilled to this form work to on of the the
understand agents
plans
story. algorithm
Applier
goal-based were
existed, used
how goals
how like
they
explanations. intentional
relating
than
1985).
has intentions of
been
on plan
a description of physical
a sequence
has
out by
intentionally (1985).
carried
planning (1985)
Kautz of
a formal as planned
systems Levesque
use
a possible whereas
semantics is
communication, aspects of
concerned
non-monotonic
reasoning
with
-60-
2.5
Issues
in
Discourse
Analysis
Returning first structure simply presuppose question of these to because that should
to was
the the
three
in is
been
theories of structure.
discourse However
there be
examined
briefly. razor of is no to his defence act theory. to in order Indeed discourse have to he
speech real of
structure Searle's
refutation
arguments
gives
four theory
main of
reasons
why he feels of
that
there
will
the
structure
Firstly, speech
sequential ). Secondly,
relationships he feels
(Holdcroft a purpose
conversations in terms of
or point of the
cannot
(Searle in from.
appear
caused his
difficult
main
approach. to not,
Searle
feels that
what what
background" is
cognitive the of
the
participants it is not
discourse to have a
determine theory
hence
possible
general
relevance.
these states view of points that speech at some view be to for of length. holds In answer if in theory to to we any of have
Holdcroft point accept event, discourse a even then Searle's hand the substantial if goes view idea view it is on one,
discusses Holdcroft
only and
correct play in
only It
any acts
to at reject
section point
Searle's
sufficient
a structure, cognitive
indeed
accept
Searle's
undermine
science.
Searle's
stance
on discourse
is
understandable
given
his
-61-
description that between expositive that stands the Searle in speech Austin
of
acts.
However, pointed to
this the
is
in
spite
of
the
fact
relationship looking of the at the fact act of of possibility forced This is into a the
speech class
and speech
discourse acts. It
spite one
himself to (see
stated
speech
relation act of
description
components of any
acts,
rejecting position
discourse
has
a structure.
untenable.
question
made
the with
assumption act act face of deal theory Sinclair acts appear theory, theory. it of into to
was compatible
affected appears
theory. integrate
a great act by
the
lines
acts, to
functional acts to in
do little in
constrain of
possible
speech
describe
we need to utterances
examine to
makes adjacent
relate
and
Wilson of
(1982) maximal
put
forward
pragmatic suggest
theory that:
theory
relevance.
They
Degrees output, implications, needed (Sperber Sperber time detail problems (1982). theory and in to
of
depend is is
of of of
to
where
the the
derive
these op.
implications.
and Wilson
describe expended.
time is
of
1986). for
However see
grave Good
example of
Gazdar and
Gazdar is based
demolition on Sperber
Wilson's notion of
on an attack
-62-
non-trivial A given pragmatic eminent what etc. the the this more by
inference interesting
and also
degrees of
of
account
conversational
(1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d). relevance (Holdcroft has been 1986a). sentences, suggests a grammatical related. Firstly, different relationship be possible to regarded Holdcroft speech
relevance
relates
to, analysis
there
is
Holdcroft because
(Holdcroft
functional realisations
several relevance
syntactic is
and the it
to
define. the in
must
separately from
in
a question-answer
pair
place
the
of
relevance
can be and
sub-divided to a
relevance be said to
relevance Sperber
that
made a not
Several speech two a main higher acts
successful
issues have
attempt
emerged structure. of discourse talk
describe
the Firstly structure,
logical
investigation when
from
and
discourse
examining
rival level
we notice
theories
about set of of
a more the to in
primitive difference
main
discourse their
discourse has as
discourse discourse
its
Conversational preferred investigating structure. there that are are The very
to
discourse is that
between
theories
worthy
further
investigation.
it
must Consider
be the over
realised following in
that
relevance
is pairs:
very
We stopped and
Singapore sights,
of
days Road
the
such
as Orchard
Singapore's
are
clean
enough
to
eat
off.
-63-
B it
have
visited about to
Singapore the
of thus
went
recently
and visited
Jorvik
was very me of
a statement making
that
is
in
perhaps
drawn
between sense,
may on
only its
involve own is
relevance unlikely
desirable purely be
terms to say
something pairs
theory some
into ground
There analysis striking approaches. (Burton part wholly first and main in of
and
analysis
because
structure. from
the
an adjacency initiates to
answer), The
adjacency
described
question incompatible
a priori an what to be be
that
speech
act of
theory discourse
is
fundamentally structure speech are thus Examining conversational act if and theory
asks if
the this
for
bleak
this
turns
true. is of the
to
unseat the
and appear
differences
-64-
to
occur
at
lower analysis
level models
as view
both
discourse as a two as it
analysis hierarchy
and of
discourse of the
But
a closer
approaches might at
suggest first
these
differences
be as great
(op.
cit.
solves in
;p
the
356)
suggests
of act
that
indirect theory
the
conversational
acts. that The of force example
approach posed
problem speech
speech is simply
an utterance is explained
does by
literal of indirect
force
but
some acts.
other For
a theory
speech
utterance:
Must
I ask you to
take
out
the
rather
pre-requests. structure:
matinee?
pre-request
(22)
a sequence
Do you have
has a four-position
for the Saturday
(PRE-
REQUEST) (23) B: There are plenty in the circle and balcony. (GO-
AHEAD). (24) (25) A: B: I'd OK. like two in the balcony, please. (REQUEST). (RESPONSE).
In
position
1 turns (24), of
(22),
check
that This
conditions appears to
for be
3 turns ranking
preference refusal,
prefers
dis-prefers up
checked (Labov in
and Fanshel
This (as
are or
service
encounters
above)
inability
fulfil to
Levinson
suggests
altogether,
Independent'?
way position
1 pre-requests
-65-
to
position
4. that
Brown
and
Levinson a position
(1979) 4
note response
another to be
pre-request directly:
enables
I don't No I'm
suppose afraid of
this
in
black?
what
Brown
and Levinson
call op.
pessimism. that can acts there request intermediate Careful account show aspects (Levinson
One conversational acts and of
goes of
on to
suggest
(Levinson
this
so that of of
be reached because, is
directly he suggests,
each strategy
going going
without
through
He suggests of
that: this conversationally of the speech most quite acts based will
standard
accounts of
renders
many act
problematic illusory.
speech p. 364)
interesting is the
issues
the
and attempt to
aspects
of speech
(op. as first a
cit. pre-
and
the
first then
Levinson explained in
this
hinted part
at of
when
an adjacency
the
four-turn cannot
sequence
first, away in
if
there this
is
an
speech
be explained is at best
incomplete. for
example:
Thanks.
utterance, issued a request the use sequence of in for a snow-storm a lift. then there or If must at by Aa non-car to accept owner this
The to
first B is
treated
as of the
we are be least
some
explanation sort of
a pre-request
some
-66-
preparatory that the if request (33): The that Social then the
The either to
with or
a hint not
as
a pre-request as such to
is then (30):
perceived the
Consider
response
respondent it is
the than
implied
request
or of the If
fails the
to
see
a statement forbid
convention going on
speaker there
request request
be made
directly, of
Another
type
conversational
(34):
(Mother
to
Son):
Must
I ask you to
take
out
the
garbage? Then consider (35): an equivalent (One stranger close According single based utterance the second to explanation on the the to indirect another speech in act: Must I ask you to
a train):
window? conversational why this type analysis of indirect sequence. would approach speech The there might mother be to is a
used son
the
indirect would
act
out as the
relative
discourse acts
speech of
used.
knowledge to play
contract in
between of
participants speech
part
a theory
indirect
point
about
is
that is not
they clear
do not that a
example two
have
utterances,
except
pre-announcement: (36) (37) It does A: B: not Guess what? Its serve egg mornay for lunch for again. explaining an indirect speech
as a vehicle
-67-
act.
Its
not
even
appear
to This
bear only is
to
corresponding view set theory theory indirect fails indirect conversational inconsistent regularities may thus theory of that of
pre-request.
conversational
analysis
not
so much a theory and speech and of the but speech treatment this all
Although
discourse
However, acts it is in
simply
acts. analysis
categories are in
appear
observations
speech
theory. discourse
aspects
interesting
politeness. the
conversational is it perhaps
explains are
the
producing
status in the
speakers
context
examples. a pre-request however the its may be taken use is to as a some hint extent
wants
by context, A:
example:
Independent'?
B: Here that
suppose
we are
likely
following blade
sequence: cutters?
section
next
to
the
pesticides.
B is only likely to fulfil the request if a further request is
made.
exactly?
principle model (similar of Grice. to the Could one
This it
is be
-68-
described explanation does explain case carried sometimes provides requests that not
in of seem hints,
section what is
2.3) going
could
provide The
us
with
suitable sequence
pre-request It it is
to
possibilities. ignored,
does
a hint the it as as in to
usually are
4 of
sequence It also
indirect
the
formula:
traditional
AI plan of the
speech
models may
theory.
have something in action to contribute One) as describes Allen's one Could
Chapter (be
informative).
a plan
is
apparent of
from speech
this acts, in of
study that
that
in
order
to
have
an is in act of
be studied
conjunction
discourse also to
we must respect
recognise
limitations At
higher
theory It
structure. is
analysis several
compatible
theory,
although Finally,
unanswered analysis,
theories.
provided
structure alleged to
theory
questions some of
have the
been next
Chapter in order to
Three to build
describes
an attempt
find
and also
a logical
speech
-69-
3.
The Deconstruction
of
Speech
Act
Verbs
3.1
Introduction
One
some of Chapter
the
more at
speech its
act
now time
many of
problems for my at
speech to
particular
examine
as they act
types.
An interesting (1987), description don't many agree similarities of section acts. first
is
and
extent simply
draw
work even
act of
because, they to
with
descriptions
do at take
least in
the act
approach
I intend
examine basis
in nature
these for
point
largely of discourse. for his fit
Searle's
and does
of
for acts
between why we
speech
order relational
theory examine about and the the the of act we the the
allow what of
need he
theory 1.3)
there
possible fits an
in fit
direction a speech perhaps where act within problematic be and a type what
of
fit. has
If
we are
something
occurred as
a direction content
fit
such to
But
this
a rather
because operating
only
considers the
of that
between
propositional
-70-
content the
in
the
world.
However, and
there
is
non-linguistic) An account of
role
in
recognition. he states: of
theory
speech but
constitutes that
utterance
sequencing
recognition
component
idea with
is
that other
it
no acts we
a speech This
act is
discourse. that
problematical
form uses
several
as a promise.
to on examine Searle's speech is the or the seven components they relate are to point a particular except is no that of illocutionary with (section utterance, I says in see nothing no
We also force the 1.4). which problems about why it the to notion Firstly is the with see
one
illocutionary point of point, but if to of act point, of the there the provide the and
illocutionary problem, For get the example, hearer point one speech
relational shouldn't. is to
reason
principle of in at I see a a a no
illocutionary an answer, is
have point,
no
arguments except to
that have
should
necessarily
as speech
a acts
do not Veken be
tableaux degree of
given of
by
Searle
and
perhaps tuple of
better
viewed that
computation of the
factors
determine
strength
third
of
illocutionary is
force
is
the
mode
of of of
achievement underscoring
an amorphous illocutionary
grouping force
the
-71-
an that
utterance. carries
For
example, of
Searle
cites as part
command of its
as
act
a mode is
force. it is
carried of authority
of of
and
as mode of
achievement while
is
something _or
testifying they
somewhat sworn on
testifies, to be sacred
that things,
the
truth. requests
testifying, questions special concerned and hence speech for in its I as mode with
we may well of as
do many asserting
that of being
something under
the I
case
speech
relationship forming a formal forms speech significantly two to say that acts
to
We
special we
such alter
where about
have then of
a normal
conversation party someone materially which acts speech they such acts. was is
oath.
actual
surface argue
that as
speech formal
as testify
should
cases,
going
on to
explain the
what of
formal authority
speech and
acts its
investigating acts
identified with is in respect a position speaker It can (at
notion
least) to
two
authority: of or be authority is
hearer realised
primary of
must
away
change
depending
subject.
-72-
For still B
if
B,
applies assumed
position an authority at
primary on the be
sometime their
a primary
example, to the
with and
authority subject
primary of
some
determined
matter
conversation.
Going I am
back
to
formal to
speech
acts: those
this acts
attempting forms
surface with
that not. of
bound what
discourse
To explain speech
mean by this; declaratives: pre-determined would denote speech sentence also speech whereas
The have no
called using No-one going hand different testify certain types to the
ritualised
ceremonies
speech
On the to
a speech form. to
act
verb
has act
that
do with
sentential
others
second relational
is
that to
certain them,
act consider:
verbs
appear baptise
to or
element There is
way a set
there of of and
acceptance, I would
appear
normal might
acts. speech
formal
become consider
I move
on to the
define of
speech acts.
acts
outside
class
back
to
the but
idea the
of
it
is makes form
asserting, from
added
assert
does not
govern
discourse
testify
-73-
is that
true, it is
obeying guide
Grice's
pragmatic I still to
maxims answer requests. in is I any known speak the or speech There a preutter
a similar
ways assert
indirectly
I cannot it
way be said beforehand indirectly. relationship choice acts are of such still set words acts
be testifying I am
indirectly, whether or
not
reasons,
as baptise if very
words
and that
achieve have
baptism. no role
in
an and
understanding discourse
relationship intend
between to
with act
speech them
idea use it of
structure
I the when
and I do not
agree type to some of
cover
the
extent
speech the
that
considering
relational
aspect
speech
fourth
component content
of
illocutionary
force
is
the
Propositional to help us
do
nothing
however
significant content
considered
I cannot
predict
words,
propositional of
content
illocutionary things
are that
such
speaker
extend us
relational
link
just regard to
can be achieved,
speaker If overall to we
the
communicated the
want
the
then
request
can be seen
as responding
-74-
want.
In request,
this
is
set
up
the two
request of two
are
conditions" via
possible is
relationship that
something
be developed
and coming
The sincerity two Austin's He spoke procedure cannot where idea this theory language, they must it of be is
component
of
illocutionary conditions it is
of at that
pointing of
an examination (Austin
the but
exist, in
sincerity to lead
to
speech If
seems is
to to
a gap be
speech
a total
explanation apply
how we all
speech conditions
important to other
are Searle's be
speech
conditions of Gricean
furnished also
Leech
and
of
speech
acts
that of of
propose telling
will a
be lie of
the
possibility
one of a lie
description
someone the
and stating -P. force However, a not constituent follow scale. that
-P with
component sincerity
illocutionary
is even
the if
degree we
of
condition. be does
accept of of
sincerity force,
condition then it
Similarly a stronger
However
-75-
facts those
that that In
request assert. of
are
different
from
to
relations
between of
speech
illocutionary i)
come to of in
point way,
for elicit
example
by the
speaker
a response ii) Preparatory one speech In these the speech this chapter ideas relational acts relate
second the the
conditions act to
to
provide
a link
from
another following
ones, of the
to
embraces how
time
describing
discourse
of of
structure.
Searle's its approach I of or given have the too in section touched of in content of the linear above. A
already
of
components simplistic,
illocutionary particular conditions. illocutionary scale. further sentential expressed out such a as by I have the
force mode
are of
propositional of strength on a simple is are is to units level a one of units as an level to below. so
degree
problem in
basis,
since and
a sentence, explanation
possible discourse
lower or
discourse, such as
markers, I more
higher cited
argue a higher
with
speech argue
on
speech
acts.
Searle
the
entailment to be sound
and
proved of
notion
primitive
-76-
certain class,
speech and is
such absent
as permit in
in
the
case of
of
the
speech
acts, that
suggests in
be treated entailment
a different should
or that
be played
down.
My theory the of important acts fourth indirect criticism speech of of acts why Searle's is in not certain direct description properly is explained, that the indeed indirect is not to even
question are
preferred
over
Currently, a better account else that that able be able which maxims. fifth criticism in to in is
something acts
theory) taken
and
any
a far In the
than
an account notions
used
incorporates
politeness
pragmatic My mentions into to his explain The called then can If then theory that way, it it it use is
of
Searle's no
approach attempt is
is
that to in
he it
made
include
politeness
existing If speech
"levels must
provide This
an
account us in of
we
however
leads of ways
account
language. sentences
we may use as to
or acts
without or
account in
speech particular
a particular the
nothing
is
pragmatic
act
theory between
is
attempting
to and
is
to and
describe further
with
intentions
was made.
implies
-77-
it
must from
be the
able
to
say
how the
utterance it must
is be
proposition something
Hence from a
to
say as
about to
proposition
expressed
an utterance. this, it that utterance. an utterance, of what view of But we want is that is is providing somewhere Obviously, us with an the act must lies is and act theory Bach and an
a thought form of
some the
two. the
with is
illocutionary traditional
produced about
nothing
happens something
and
what
is the
involved. reverse In
(1979) a speech to
however act
about from
process, my theory
intend
assume level
there can
In together
other some
words, form
producing that
expresses that
to
say.
Although
examining exactly
components left.
illocutionary
1. My
is
the
point
or
purpose
of which
the
act. is a by the
effect" out to
speaker I point.
achieve to
question.
objections
illocutionary
2. view be
The
degree this
of
strength lie to In
of as think other
the
reject it in a
that more
should
a point of it
appropriate
adjacent is very be
space
words it would
much
Hence as being of as
thought linear
having
sort
purpose. such as a
relationships
trivial,
-78-
between: I am angry.
1 am very,
very
angry.
3. do
The away
Mode with
of
achievement. Any be
This acts
is that
that a so
I called
propose mode or
achievement be classified
way
"formal" sort
some
parties to
renouncing
works"
baptism.
4. in
Content
Conditions. of
Most predict
of
these for
will
include
by necessity, the
hence
description. apologize of
be able Modus a
explain
I cannot
Ponens, description
description what
apologize for.
include
I can apologize
5. will
Preparatory be greatly
of
a preparatory be
condition to
not "cognitive
restricted states".
presuppositions
include
6. hence of
Sincerity by
propose
to
drop
these the
completely, of the
and
implication
seventh I
the
sincerity they
remain
acts, We can
place to
what
we only derive us
maxims If
and
we already to appears be
have true to be
we believe there
and no
we have to have
adequate sincerity
evidence conditions.
-79-
3.2
Speech
Acts
As Schemas
of thought
act
will
encompass to
what
the
speaker
utterance
that
speech
define act. to
by the the
speech
Further know in to
those sense of
speaker he is the
needs likely
responses
that
receive Finally,
an utterance attached to in
I
act. the
to
speaker
convert order to
speech
appropriate speech
of
surface act.
component acts. some make that will
a representation
what is required
the
each
will using
these
parts For
rough to me to that
description make an
some
common
speech I or have to
example, that
assertion, that
leads
believe true.
P may be also
believe that
P is of the the I
want
believe action
something of
is
hearer. true.
consist something, accept that enable assertion. surface maxims way. My the
P is be
asserting will
hearer possibility
P as
have
hearer me to
believe the I
P and
knowledge hearer to
will my
decode
direct
hearer
choice
considerations
politeness.
the act
of
this
chapter,
I will
develop of in
the
idea
of of a
as a schema consisting to know, act. also believe I will describe i. e. what etc. develop what it is it
speaker type
speech I will
schemas is that
types. to
supposed
achieve, the
contain to
to to
possible strategies
responses to produce
speech correct
act. surface
Chapter
-80-
already
to
represent
necessary
an effect, to have
on the
hearer. speech
a body,
go on to
some descriptions
verbs.
Assert is discussed Searle It has and been acts in by both der in Searle Veken several Allen's the schema: and use Van it der as Veken and Bach
and
Van
their
primitive Intelligence
used
Artificial model
speech assert
including terms of
(Allen
1983).
INFORM (S, H, P) precondition: effect: body: Assert precondition hearer mutual hearer knows belief to is the that that that know of that is used and to know(S, know(H, P) P) S (know informing that The P is body of H P))) hearer true the know act and of the P with effect act speaker is (see a the sort end what is the that the wants of of the
speech that
speaker body
both of this
The
understand
(1990) a discourse
propose
a slight
modification
to
include
context: P)
INFORM(S, precondition:
H, discourse-context, bel(S, P)
not-committed(S, effects: committed(S, bel (H, P) In to this description and of the assert,
discourse-context, discourse-context,
P) P)
the
rather the
strong fact
believe
particular committed to
discourse P to being
changes
being
committed
-81-
Bach
and Harnish in
uttering i) ii)
belief intention
has
H believe
assert analysed is
that
P. "
(op. of her
Another cit.
author
described
agree to
encapsulate to from
meaning further
study, that
is
the
eventually description,
before above
more of all,
detail. the H, P) and description as a sort The act of of or verb inform of assert of given header with has that act, to I by followed using be intend hence a be order and Allen by inform out use more more to does Before the
a body.
problem and
a speech interpretation
ruled to
perhaps speak in
it carry
merely any it
of
uttering force. to of
components is
worthwhile to the
relate illocutionary
schema
preconditions: however I bel(S need P) the other that that be been to it it know would is
to
be
order true. of an
or
the
want(S I want is
P))). to
P is forced
asserted his
this
schema, that it to
purposes to
effects the
relate point
P is
-82-
This in terms i)
has component
led
us parts:
to
a description
of
a speech
act
part in the at
which
specifies
what For
information it make is an
the
assert to
statement
going with
utterance content
hearer
propositional
ii)
- which in
specify order to
what
the
speaker
should the
or believe
successfully
utter
iii)
The act.
effect
is
the
desired
result
of
the
speech
part
information (however that are which the utterance here ... can also that and affect it
that
will
be be the that
to
surface only
the The
determines a set
be present constitutes is a
speaker's speech process assert form more speech result of P). the act
mind (I
conscious I will
similar The
is
something the
fully acts. of
problem desires
effect the
what
speaker
happen
uttering
speech
At definition
this of
point assert of X
it in
is
useful of the
to
look
at
Wierzbicka's
the
above
assert
by Wierzbicka
I imagine
would true.
say this
is
not
true.
will I want
have to
to
think
that
it
is
true.
because
say what
I know is
true.
1)
is
equivalent SPEAK(S H P)
to
the
outline
form
of
the
utterance
action:
It
is
to
translate -P)])
2)
as
bel(x
in that
other
this
as the
belief
held that
by the P is not
speaker true.
there
who might
believe
-83-
The third I can This could bel(S (Given the want(S +bel(S I take instead
above, P)))
this which
might could
as: as:
issue to
with represent
fourth as:
of
Wierzbicka's
conditions
and prefer
may believe
that
it
is
true.
represented poss(bel(H
words believe that
speaker P. If will
that
it
is
possible original
the
people the it is
it
is
then people
imagine is: is
that this
say
because
want bel(S
true.
want(S
INFORM(H
x)]))
This is
as the is of
reason
speaker
wants
to of
that speaker as
course P,
simplification
which
to is,
reason
hearer that
in.
Of course, definition,
there that
a danger speaker it
becomes because
the
asserts
to
that
P.
However
we compare For
act. the
when to
about
speech to
speaker Hence
do something.
condition
(S INFORM(H
then
case want(S
commissives
INFORM(S
H will(do(S
In will
other do P.
words,
the
speaker
wants
to
inform
the
hearer
that
he
Wierzbicka
has
chosen
to
represent
assert
with
some
quite
-84-
statements simple
that description
need by solely
the our to P
that true.
I merely some
we have likely
forms
saying the
something assertion.
response
was Allen,
with
the
Statement that
I is
have not
expect
a necessary or
precondition that P) of is
knowing to
believing that
wanting with
purpose the
that some
other I assert
disagree make
readily
responses. utterance so
Hence much
possible Because of
explain
that 3)
2) is and
is in so
an
of
a description by Allen
assert. his is
keeping should of
given
schema a modified
explanation. act. I
version that
speech
the
interpretation
to
suggest
that
because P. 5)
speaker is it an is
P that of
hearer speaker is
has to
why the
utterance, as a component
though of
to
me that it
of
this
assert
include
all of
anyway.
this together effect H P) and we can set of now arrive at a schema
an action, SPEAK(S
cognitive
states:
Cognitive
States:
[Ex: P)
bel(x
-P)])
Presumed
Effect:
bel(H
-85-
Note
that
I effect
have is
the
hearer true.
However, believe
hearer
we can
formalise gone
have
theoretical discourse, responses. The states relationship the states speaker act. In
the
speech
act major
in
terms
of
cognitive the
on two to of
problems: structure,
secondly, cognitive
order predict
an
enable to the
the speech of P,
assert, and
responses statement
acceptance P was
a possible
already
this
chapter of the of I
describe
four
or in many next
speech similar
each
analysis of which
unanswered three
questions,
hope
explore
chapters. In Chapter (or Four I will expand states) between the are the can on in acts the some in in that example speaker in this terms an is respect to idea way discourse. addition explain in to how assert, prepared because other does that I that direct If the or we
cognitive
relationships as an example;
speech preconditions
also
good in
must are
possible to any
i. e. to
states predict
speaker
possible
responses
A simple
-86-
of the
this
the
hearer
like hearer
the
way
in
speaker
utterance,
may object
speaker
Chapter has the be
shouting.
Five upon I the is will explore surface derived form from several form scope that surface of not the of the other effect the that utterance. speech factors literary act the speech act
generation to
beyond hope to
specified of the
schema states in
so do will
cognitive further
preconditions,
explored
Chapter Six of
of It
speech show stone, attempt surface logic" will of also surface will be
speech there
evolve deontic
"pragmatic It
and
its
effects of
explanation maxims.
indirect
acts
on politeness
a note speech
on the acts
used syntax
in
the used.
to used has
operators
such
as bel,
formalised have
(1985). in
certain I have
places also
introduction (1968).
the
McCawley
I have
and Hughes
used deontic
and Cresswell
operators p for in
state denote
obligation, (see
Hilpinen the
logic). in
examine
modal
Four.
I is
have
used by its
a notation parameters
in
which
an operator in
(in
lower e. g.,
case)
followed
enclosed
parentheses,
-87-
P)
means means
that that it
the is
speaker
believes the
that case
P. that P.
necessarily
operators
may be
nested:
(S P) ) always end of
act
parenthesis at
or
follows last
the
operator
name
and
it
is
closed
the
its
parameter.
are used in upper case, e. g.
speech
names
H P)
which
means that
the
speaker
produces in
a surface brackets in
form order
expressing to describe
been
enclosed
bel(x examine
the
use of use of
the the
various formulae
logical in Chapter
operators Four.
and
discuss
the
schematic
3.3
A description
of
Assertive
Speech Acts
3.3.1
Claim
Searle may are Claim forceful opposition conditions 1) 2) 3) 4) I I I I is 5) I that 1) 2) as is before, also be
and
Van in
der exactly
Veken the
(op. same
p. 183) assert,
state
that
claim there
treated
however to it is the be is
that
explored. a more
assert, making to
(presumably) by Wierzbicka
p. 324)
say to to
this say
is this. to
not
true.
have
say
that
this
because right. be
want
to
cause
other
people
to
think
represented
as
SPEAK(S
H P).
as before:
bel(S
The in could third making say
[Ex:
condition
bel(x
-P)])
concerns the the evidence has of for making to the claim. it, it could If we be
speaker knows
evidence some
support which
speaker
Q from
-88-
that believes
P.
weaker be inferred
case
of from
this Q.
would This
be
that
the the
suggests
logical
[EQ:
know(S of
a statement a claim.
what
making
a claim from P.
I want condition
I know that
believe
upon as a statement
P is
and can be
represented
want (S bel(H
So to summarise Action:
in
schema
form:
H P)
Cognitive
States:
1) bel(S 2) bel(S
[Ex:
bel(x
-P)]) Q) &
(Q -> P))])
One
of
the to
main
is of
the
existence 1) be or it
of
the will
evidence come as
support
condition may Q Q.
claim
Condition inference
hearer to
speaker
derive
3.3.2
Assure
Searle
Veken
(op.
cit.
p. 184)
describe
assure
as:
intention propositional
of
Wierzbicka of "worry"
that mind
assure of the
is
also
with is
the
removal
hearer.
people etc. ),
(as
contrasted
additionally of something.
assuring
someone
accuracy
-89-
The conditions 1)
given
for
assure of
thinking
something
2) 3) 4) 5) thing
I can cause
you to
be sure
I say this
because want
I want to
to
cause is
you to
be sure
that
the
that
be true
true.
SPEAK(S H P) elements speaker context, about as that the to condition the hearer infers like 1): is firstly thinking the about
important
speaker
thinking
P and would
indicates whether P is
that true.
the
speaker
Hence we can
is
the of
by assuring that it
something hence
on believe
I am attempting condition
3) I the the in
cause to the
true,
follows
this
from
refers
that the
presumed
wants
speaker to simplify
to
have
chosen to act.
speaker
hearer speech
believe It
represented
So the
whole
schema SPEAK(S
assure
is:
Action:
H P)
Cognitive
States:
1) bel(S 2) bel(S
want(H bel(H
bel(H poss(-P)))
P)))
the
presumed
effect are in
is that
that the
the
hearer
that
P,
hearer
P anyway had no
speaker's in in 1)
1) is whether
incorrect), P is true
interest belief
speaker's may
but
for
a different
reason).
The hearer
-90-
have has
previously suddenly
-P, of
still
believes convinced
-P, of
or P.
3.3.3
Argue
Veken in
(op. that
cit. the
p. 184) speaker
define gives
argue supporting
as
only
that
arguing
collective p. 125).
speech
(Wierzbicka conditions
think
the
that
following
what it. you
argue:
different from what
about
W is
about
2)
3)
I assume that
I are think right. I can
if
I am right
say some things
you can't
which
be right.
you will have to say
4)
assume
that
that
if
you to say
say that
that I
these
things
have
you were
because
I want
to
cause
you to
have
to
I was right
wrong.
Assuming their according speech act states Veken implies this (Searle who very is act. definition to
that
neither of argue
nor
Searle logical
are
the The
this this
thesis thesis
a defined pattern.
does
argue of
and
Searle
argument
would
Holdcroft not is
because states.
very because
states incompatibility
an argument
-91-
of
views
between
the
in theory der
the
discourse. is simpler
approach taken is
Veken, of
moreover, some
existence anyway. is
element as an
speech
force in
equally to
the is
speaker about P to
a position the
place.
Consider
following
A: Asserts B: Disagrees
A: (Somewhat P.
about
taken
P
aback): Provides supporting evidence for
thesis
that speech
will acts
is
that because
the it
problem is the
effectively discourse,
components This
argument Wierzbicka's
will
we can when
see
state initial
need to
be present Speaker
presenting P knowing that will The air. the then point They the that was
disagree
arguments
have
as a starting in the
the disagree
speaker
known that
the
illocutionary of
arguing of and of an
be assigned a relation
initial the
hence
illocutionary
make sense.
3.3.4
Inform
Searle
Veken
(op.
Cit.
p. 185)
state
that:
To
inform
is
to
assert
to that
a hearer the
with
the does
condition he is being
hearer of.
informed
-92-
This inform
rather and
explanation not seem to act that crucial to leave hearer appear authority P
of
the
difference the is quite knows between for doubts, that that of an speaker
difference that already. Inform after true. carries necessarily agreement authority first being The with when
speech
asserts the
difference no room to
of
all,
P the would of
has from
this
on the authority,
official and
unspoken is an
hearer of P.
that
Wierzbicka 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)
then
gives
the
following to
conditions about
for X.
inform:
I assume that
X that you to
you should
know.
to
cause
you to that
understand
something 7) 1) is
could I will
rather
and I prefer
something
interpreted
to
know P
simply be
be interpreted
as the
fact
that
knows P, P)
which
know(S
Additionally speaker version
add the
something hearer
to should
represent know P.
the
fact
that
the
So an alternative
know(S
want(know(H
P)))
3)
is
a statement
that from
the
use of
inform
as a speech re-interpreted
act 4)
schema.
I have
5)
can
be
interpreted
as the
fact
that
the
speaker
wants
the
-93-
hearer
to
can be represented
as
want (S know(H 6) could an authority this should be achieved on the not difficulty
P))
that of it
the
speaker
is
cognitive would
state be of
many problems
significant
MB(auth(S
a computational
7) act.
is
a description the
of
the of
presumed
effect
of
issuing
the
speech
Thus
Action:
description
SPEAK(S H P)
INFORM becomes:
Cognitive
States:
1) bel(S 2) know(S
3) 4)
want(H P)
know(P)))
Presumed
Effect:
know(H
we have used.
a speech
act
called
inform if is
it
is the
now hearer
clear does by
Possible P,
problems or if the
know about
not
perceived
be an authority
on P.
3.3.5
Conjecture
Searle conjecture is
and to
Van
der
Veken
(op.
cit.
p. 266)
state
that
weakly least
assert
that
P while for P.
presupposing
that
one has
at
some evidence
that
the answer, to
Speaker
has at
least it
thought is based
about on My P is
P some
enough the
picture. what
first and
speaker as:
wants
know P or
the
speaker
does
not
know P:
that
the
speaker
in
making
a conjecture
is
-94-
effectively as:
SPEAK(S
saying
P is
possible
and hence
it
could
be represented
H poss(P))
Note
that
poss(P) of
does the
not
the
speaker It
is
tied
to
making
format will
possible.
merely of
indicates uncertainty
utterance
some element
tentative is
a statement
possible: bel (S poss (P) ) The last in the condition possibility is that that the speaker wants the hearer as: to believe
poss (P)) ) the for conjecture discussion). is to place This it gives into us context the (as following a
possible schema:
Action:
SPEAK(S States:
Cognitive
3) bel(S
4) Presumed Effect:
poss (P) )
poss (P)) )
want (S bel(H
incontext(P)
with
conjecture to
are
firstly
that on
the P.
evidence the
hearer to
speaker
evidence has
conjecture, evidence.
or even is
add possible of
that
no significance
challenging
cognitive
3.3.6
Swear
P is we are sacred
to true
hearer by calling
have
to upon
to seen
the as
statement. act,
speech
I have
omit
it
my list
-95-
of
speech
and to Formal
classify Speech
it
under It that
of
speech
acts for
that the
Acts.
no problems is an
except namely
"external" or some
calling
upon a deity
sacred
object.
3.4
Commissive
Speech
Act
Verbs
3.4.1
Promise
is
the
first
of
the
acts
that
fall
an obligation used of by
Veken
(Searle needs
Veken
close to
scrutiny. we are that op. it the that cit. that making someone a else we will commitment will are do still The the itself to P
do P,
do P. that
is
cause do P. is
hearer
Additionally doing is
speaker
following 1) I
2) 3) 4) 5)
that
I may not
do it. do it.
you want
me to
I will us to
if I say
I don't I will
people
will
not
anything in
6)
way, I have
because to
cause
you to
be
do it.
a promise out the I have some reason action.
It to
seems believe 1)
when
I make carry
want
me to as
promised
Hence
represented
-96-
because do P,
I have hence 2)
reason
to
believe
that as
that
won't
know (S bel(H
3) is more I to
to 3)
do
something to be
even an the I of
don't explain
appears but
simply to could
because carry be
a feeling
obliged
tentative
obligation
poss (O (do (S P))) ) ) is the deontic obligation operator. of the fact that P
should out
be a simple in the
representation
be carried
SPEAK(S
future:
H will(do(S
P)))
5)
is
at
the
obligation to
upon as under
the an an
promise, speech
I prefer the P is
represent is
that
speaker done).
do P (or
see that
as an effect: bel(H 0(do(S effect P))) redundant. believes I also he is believe of state: that it is necessary out his
6) is that promise.
now in the
speaker
capable
carrying
an extra
cognitive
bel(S
P)))
This
gives
us
the
schema for
promise:
Action:
SPEAK(S
H will(do(S
P)))
Cognitive
States:
want(H bel(H
do(S
P))) P))))
poss(-do(S P))))
poss(O(do(S
with
are or
firstly commitment
that to only
the carry
hearer out if
speaker's
1) that
occurs hearer
the
may be
offended
because
-97-
had to speaker
to
do P,
although
the
hearer
never to
do P. anyway. to carry
want
might
3.4.2
Consent
In spends
her
description
of
consent, consent
cit. that:
p. 112)
some time
comparing is dependent
consenting
upon the
whereas
agree:
[takes
place]
on an equal
basis
However, although difference takes may seeking their speech place take
as consent
states comparable
(op.
cit. speech
between in
the
consenting
is
active
response without It of
request, the
place permission.
curious acts is
that include
and
Van as
taxonomy act
speech permit
commissive directives.
whereas
included
list
effectively involves
stating simply
that stating
mind
Wierzbicka
gives
the
following
1) 2) I I
conditions
know assume that that you I
happen cause
because it to
you
have if
said I
so. don't
think it
you to
happen
say
want
happen.
3) 4)
I say: I say
I want it that
it
to
because
I want to
happen 5) I able
1) can be
you want
no one other
simplified P to want(H
the
claim
that
the
speaker
knows
that
the
hearer
wants know(S
happen: P))
-98-
2)
is
in
that
the In
speaker
has the
that
the
hearer believes it
knows that
other not
words
speaker Hence
believes
that
P is
permitted.
-p(P))) p is used ) to
be thought that
Note at
3) with
that
as a deontic do with
of the as
operator speech
(or
least
may the
little
the
permit.
P is hearer permitted to do P.
a statement wants
sense
speaker
4) that the
is
a statement hearer
of
the
effect
of
the
speech
act
namely
the
P is
permitted 5)
speaker
hearer
do P.
refers
relates to omit
personal the
about following
schema for
Action: Cognitive
SPEAK(S States:
H want(S 1)
do(H
P))) P))
know(S
want(H
bel(H
& know(H
It that
is
of
the to
nature do P. is
of
the
speech
the
wanted the
question to
speaker
do P.
question
whether
hearer
to
3.4.3
Refuse
is
a fairly
blunt Veken
saying p. 195) It
no,
I will that
not
do
suggest is like
refuse in
illocutionary is a response
(op. cit.
denegation to
consent. or
the
consent
an actual
p. 94) gives
implied
following
request.
conditions for
Wierzbicka refuse:
-99-
1) 2)
I I
know think
that you
you
want
me to I
do X will
(because do it.
you
said
so).
assume
that
3) 4) 5) 6)
I say:
I don't
want I don't
to
do it have to
and I will do it if
not
I don't
because
I want
you to
that
X will
1)
is
fairly
straightforward
as:
know (S want (H do (S P))) I am not wholly as that the a convinced belief speaker will(do(S that held will P)))) 2) is necessary speaker P but that it the can be
hearer
bel(H is:
H -do(S
P))
a refusal to perform,
relates therefore
to
the P).
hearer This
wants
merely
provides the
surface
not for
be carrying example
be explicit, afraid
I'm
be possible.
represented P)))
of wants the to
-O(do(S
desired communicate
effect the
of fact
the
act not
i. e. be
carrying
This
gives
us the
following
schema for
refuse:
Action:
SPEAK(S
H -do(S
P))
Cognitive
States:
P))) P))))
Presumed
Effect:
know(H
-(do(S
If 1)
the is
refusal perfectly by
is
always
in
response for
to
a request 3) the
then
hearer to the
has
attempt
change
-100-
3.5
Directive
Speech
Act
Verbs
We (1979) Veken
now as
come
to
the
class Direct
of is
speech described
acts by
described Searle
by and act.
(op.
as
the sees
primitive it as
directive a complex of
However acts.
Wierzbicka Firstly and do yet out she ordering" something, at the the act. of
p. 42) it by
different
describes in that
expects is
making is
an order
a sense is akin
behaviour. and,
meaning is really
giving second as
on the
sometimes and
given third
imperatives.
second to
a whole
include basic
direct as
when argue,
instructions and
the
category
i. e.
a structure
speech
act. This Because it leaves appears namely only to Wierzbicka's imply in a formal issuing position of formal first description of between the speaker direct. speaker has a decided
that
I have
speech
3.5.1
Request
Searle as: a of
Veken
(op.
cit.
p. 199)
describe
REQUEST
directive refusal.
illocution
that
allows
for
the
possibility
Smith
(1970, p. 123)
describes
request
as:
a more
polite
word
for
the
same
thing
as
ask.
-101-
At an
the
time of this
on to that the
point makes
out it
that akin
there to a
is
often
implied
command.
Wierzbicka
example:
are with
requested this
to
extinguish
their
analysis. however is it
My analysis is dressed by
an order of
form which
a request should
explained
I feel particular
be an integral passengers
the
example it is
a safety there
requirement is no
possibility later
be explored
further
gives
the
following
conditions
for
request:
(op.
want that to
Y to
Y cannot cause it
something
happen.
3) 4) 5)
because to
I want
to
cause
X to do it.
cause
Y to
happen.
want
X has to
that
I have
reason
to
X will
happen.
SPEAK(S
do(H
P)))
In the as
1) the hearer in I
is out
to
the this
hearer, is
namely
that
directly it is other
you to or
out
rubbish determined
expressed than
2) carry is out
indirectly logical
the it effect won't that if
just
utterance's
to P,
know
that This
if can
you
do
not be not P
then
done.
therefore then
knowledge
Hearer
doesn't
do P,
-(do(H
P)) of the
->
-P) desired the him effect presumed to do P. of the speech is that act, the which hearer
want(S that
Hence, wants
effect i. e.
knows
speaker
know(H
want(S
do(H
P)))
-102-
fact
that
the
not
want
the of to of
given
above,
has an implied
authority).
-want(S bel(H O(do(H P))))
5)
is
of
the
reason
for
arriving
at does
the not
cognitive to be
states
Speaker,
need
request:
Action: Cognitive
SPEAK(S States:
H want(S 1) 2) 3)
do(H
poss(do(H do(H
Presumed
Effect:
know(H
want(S
of
request
include
firstly Secondly,
that the
the hearer
hearer may
may refuse P in
do P It is to
himself. even
do P.
that date,
hearer or in shall
some
promising to
do P at I shall
do P. in forms
request I
much consider
Chapter of request
where are
used.
3.5.2
Tell
Searle
Veken to be in firstly
p. 200) that
and there in
can be used in
the
do something of
the is in the
to the
ask
expressing
the
fact
speaker of tell:
something. Wierzbicka
examples
following
conditions
for
tell:
(op.
-103-
cit.
p. 41)
1) I say: I want you to do X.
2) 3)
to
cause
should 4)
I assume that
do it
because as:
of
that.
1) can be represented
SPEAK(S 2) I have bel(S H want(S to
simply
P))) as:
chosen
poss(INFORM(S
H want(S
do(H
P)))))
is act
example
of Here,
is it
used is
inside to
another denote
intended
generic
informing,
be assuring,
reporting
of
the tell
desired and
effect is no,
of that
the the
act. is
The not
request to say
the
option
therefore
presumed
know(H 4) can be
want(S weakened
do(H to:
P)))
& know(H
-want(S
-do(H
P)))
poss(do(H us the
following
Action:
SPEAK(S
H want(S
do(H
P)))
Cognitive
States:
1) bel(S 2) bel(S
poss(INFORM(S poss(do(H
do(H -want(S
H want(S
do(H P)))))
P)))
P))) -do(H & P)))
Presumed
Effect:
know(H
want(S know(H
problems as to to
with
tell
include
the
hearer do
questioning P, or
the simply,
whether
he really
wants
him to
do P.
out
by Wierzbicka,
(op. do with
cit. the
the of
second, hearing
as it
us "The a
Rime of
does speaker
not
communicating
-104-
reciting action of
for
the
hearer's type.
pleasure
and
it
is
thus
more
akin
to
an
a narrative
3.5.3
Require
and
Van from it
der telling
Veken
(op. to of
cit. do
that that is
with
a greater
strength, that it
done. speaker
appears authority
of
obligation, example
over letter
A good a
use "You or
is
in are
"unless" to pay
summons. within
E. g. 28 days
the
proceedings notice. is
amount to take
" Here
issuing of he has
notifying
ordering
to
do
so.
Wierzbicka 1)
2) 3)
gives I want
I I know say:
the
following (X) to
happen to
conditions happen.
if you it don't to
for
require:
something
it I cannot want you
cause
it
to
happen.
cause
happen.
4) 5) 6) I shall
to
I want
do it. specific:
want(S 2) becomes
know(S 3) is simply SPEAK(S
-do(H
P)
->
-P)
H want(S
do(H
P)))
4) becomes bel(S O(do(H P))) into the do P. P)))) do(H -> P) a logical hearer form believes that that states the that if
5) and 6) may be combined the wants speaker him to bel(S This gives believes do P, that
speaker
he will
bel(H us the
want(S
do(H
following
schema for
require:
-105-
Action: Cognitive
SPEAK(S States:
H want(S 1)
do(H
P))) P))
want(S
do(H
2) know(S
-do(H
P) -> -P)
3) bel (S 0 (do (H P)) ) 4) bel(S Presumed Effect: do(H P) bel(H want (S do (H P)))) do (H P) ->
problem the
with speaker
require
is
hearer to
does
not
do P, the
institute to
the is
would
vary
according could
the the
the
hearer which
inform necessitates
perhaps
condition,
-P).
3.5.4
Permit
A good given
the
distinction
permit is not
is so
itself
allowed visiting
hospital (Hayakawa
although
1969, p. 441).
Wierzbicka
1) I
gives
assume
the
that in
following
people I say
conditions
think that that I
for
they
permit:
can't cause to things happen to in
happen Y. 2) I Y. assume
Y if
don't
want
them
that
some
people
(someone)
will
want
to
do X
in
3)
I say
they
will
think do it.
say
that
they
can't
do it
if
want
don't
them to
want to
4)
I it.
that
don't
want
them
to
do
5)
because
I want
to
cause
those
people
to
be able
6)
I say
would
understand
that
I have
reasons
to
I have simply
chosen as:
basis, which
and is
more
The hearer
believes
-106-
bel(S I have
bel(H to
fP)) alter 2) slightly P)))) believes that the hearer may want to so that it becomes
chosen
bel(S In other
speaker
as: that
Unless P is
->
I state
that which
P is is
permitted,
the
hearer
believe
-INFORM(S
forbidden,
bel(H fP))
H pP)
5)
is
of
the
desired
of
the
speech act.
6) does the
speech
following
schema
Action:
SPEAK(S
H pP)
Cognitive
States:
1) bel(S 2) bel(S
3) bel(S pP)
bel(H
fP)) P))))
-> bel(H fP)
poss(want(do(H
-INFORM(S H pP)
Presumed
Effect:
know(H
If of
permit authority,
were
by the it could
speaker
in
an area by
outside the to
his hearer.
scope The
hearer
may inform
speaker fact
want allowed
do P anyway, to do P.
or may acknowledge
the
that
3.6
Declarative
and Expressive
Speech Act
Verbs
is
the
first
of (op.
the cit.
described to in call
by these
Veken acts.
Searle's linguistic
specific
circumstances,
baptise acts
or excommunicate. on the other to hand are a rather formulaic, similar nature, rather difficult to mixed such the i. e.
have
speech feelings
Because as regret,
-107-
to types to
define of
them
in
the
for still
the
other
communicative their
possible
explore
use within
discourse.
3.7
Evidence
to
Support
the
Cognitive
Thesis
in
Child
Language
to
support
the of there
state
theory develop
may perhaps their factors into may also the latter the
be
interrelated
the scope
cognitive of the
to
theory,
beyond
was
alerted language
of
finding of my own
evidence son as at
in he an the of to
from of a few to
the the
use
ability For as
example
issued was
absence
used Such
one a
used small
when child, of
wants to
is
difficult translated up
representation the by would The taking supports moulded to other myself hand, in
can
he the
unfortunately act of that quite a deity state views (1981) between between age, In and exclaiming in
picked or so,
the
word
doing
blaspheming. that he is
simple, in vain.
simple course it
explanation could be
at ages use of
the of ask
an early
than
tended
children's 4 to 7 and
understanding discovered
in
the
-108-
to is
a wide
variety
of
indirect of forms
and He
developmental found
pattern
that
relationship is strikingly
between
similar
(Carroll
p. 344).
Astington use of
carried acts. in
out Dore
into had
pre-school the
be due to in
that
society they
pre-school
infants, to be
acquired This
autonomy me to
personal of a
sequence: toys?
up the
to
by it
clear
up toys).
(1988a, p. 418) a statement it is worth that of this could be a or the and
suggested or denote of
be But
noting of as
components future
commissives so
both be
statements regarded
components,
might
commis s ive .
One of explicit until been the later, mastered cognitive that such the most interesting commissive though then. approach, of the have later. exist as the findings (such of of Astington is does appears evidence given that but the credence level. whole to that not to the come have for above compose thing the as promise) promising to the provide example states mastered also an gives
concept This
together cognitive
intermediate
and
Weil
the in
of between greater
general between
strength
earlier
modal
and that
distinguish the
factuals
any differentiation
-109-
occurs. and of
Furthermore are
they
found
that from is
modals before
of is,
should) necessity of
noticed the
deontic
comprehension
modals. Bonniec (1974) suggested doesn't appears at the to age that come until be backed of 8 an understanding around the 11th of or
containing do not
those
contain
them. knowledge
(1985)
examined
cognitive such as
and forget
their and
mastered 7.
(1980) looked of
believe
not
properly
at
the
of
skills that to
standpoint entirely
Searle's
obtained
supportive.
Reeder
whether in to
findings
findings (1975) as an
view
that
indication
a demand
marker.
if
the toys?
simple
'commissive'
you put
away the
about indirect
toys).
this sequence to the is that it act. exhibits This have both is emerged. it of and a
speech acts as
at if
how
even primitive
commissive intention
cognitive
-110-
It
is
the
performative occurs
use of for be
come until
'difficult' of
speech difficulties
can
terms
the
cognitive
state
components.
Further until complex to far later cognitive from evidence in the states an early it comes child's of age. does from deontics development. obligation Although at least etc. the give which are not mastered presuppose difficult is the
master from
presented credence to
cognitive
3.8
What is
the
Cognitive
State
Hypothesis?
In (or
this
chapter specifically
I have
put
about It an
speech is
acts still
more
to but
think what
illocutionary consists of
illocutionary
actually
be stated.
originally force and conceived realistically the illocutionary point it is point the is of seven only constituent two point still of and the those the point in effect of from as the set and that parts of an in
remain preparatory or
namely
conditions. of the
specify context. make this uttered. states, the needs some elaborate will speech
upon
speaker of the
speech of
a small
be present
speaker's to of be the
immediately Firstly to
before
utterance. stated cases. the for cast should the time a that
because
thought the
state mind
cognitive before
immediately
utterance.
-111-
intend
that
this
is
some of
speech speaker
knows
on the same.
context.
The perlocutionary
remains
more or
part to
of allow
the the
speech
act, to
acts select
the
speaker
a particular of other process is that will a but be speech also added to both
However, as linguistic
translation
exactly
implication cognitive So proposition, which speech have will acts been There immediately from states? speech decode acts some the action How, act the and light is
states making
have act
the stating of
making the
cognitive
states aspect of
around
states
questions how schema, can hearer way)? this? before act order is
of
which
the
come
hearer need do
recognise to be
cognitive
Where I
indirect to is at least
hope it in
questions, speech in
then
necessary of they
theories to see
light
whether
hypotheses. back to of see human was 1988 how the cognitive state An early model of as vocalThe and this way goes a
relates linguistic
theories
called for
Akmajian, message
a fuller the
model,
speaker and
hearer sound
(the
M which
interprets by
as message sounds.
ideas
transmitted
public
model
-112-
back
to
(1691), cit.
but
it
is
not
without
its
problems
(Akmajian Firstly, linguistically which process governed process. consideration particular will need one
expressions and it
up to
which, by any
as far
model contains
something he is
interpret Also, is in
not with
communicate right
non-literally. to (1979)
solve
these
problems. to their study. speaker solve the problems is called linguistic H share of This model. that the
defeated inferential
the
model
model is
Firstly,
communication a system of
inferential H's
leading of S's
expression at least
E to is
recognition that is
an idea model
Linguistic of
shared
by the
The inferential
1. The capable the also 2. The
makes the
Presumption
following
(LP). the meaning The
is
presumed of must
referents model
cognitive
Communicative is that
(CP). is
model.
3.
The belief
Presumption that is
of
Literalness there is
This to is the
is
the
shared the to
contrary
speaker this
4.
literally. cognitive
no objection
either
model.
In the course that hold: of at any any
H presume principles
following
-113-
is
to partially
the
determine
indirection.
Sequencing: is the of
Speaker's
to
the to
not
at
except make an
th e cognitive
state why at
to
explain
exchanges reference
are to
appropriate the
presupposed
Speaker's that
to
the
exchange On
I would in the
importance one
somewhat is
On the
necessary the
or wants hand,
act.
on it the P,
acts to not
whereby, believe P.
example, he believes
speaker when in
he believes
utterance not
the too
cognitive
state
along it does
recognition us to
system
the
mechanisms
assumption
presupposes
Speaker
has
adequate This is
evidence also
for
what of
is the
an assumption
-114-
to
make
the
utterance of
communication.
clearly of
that expression,
is,
state
assumption
have much to
say about
in
speaking.
behaves
offensive, this
abusive, the
assumption, deal
a great
more to the
politeness forms
relationship
between
surface
Morality: is, not or not the The model model, the from implications and by contrary some areas the and it S reveal, does wish not
in
speaking
behaves information
for to do
done
have
cognitive of
the the
cognitive cognitive
inferential large is of is
inferential that is
detail
missing
model.
inferential used to
model recognise
also
includes
a It
description consists
of of
the four
an utterance.
speaker Step 2.
Hearer
-115-
to Step Step 3. 4.
be operative. Hearer Hearer recognises recognises directly, what what if speaker speaker speaking is is referring intending to. to
communicate
literally.
2.
speaker
speaking
recognises
what
speaker
is
intending
to
communicate
literally
(and directly).
3.
The
Step
be speaking speaker
what
nonliterally
(and directly).
4.
The Indirect
Step 7.
Strategy.
Hearer for Hearer recognises speaker recognises indirectly. that to be it would be inappropriate directly. intending
contextually Step to 8.
speaking speaker
merely is also
what
communicate
This
forms
the state
for
speech
act at
The this, of
it
would listed
now
how some
out.
exactly of detail. the what the
appropriate is and
state need
model to
what in
explained (LP),
presumption of state
area
where
attempts of
inferential
Conversational
Presumptions.
is the
of
importance, state
of not
is to in
cognitive what
relevance
other
-116-
terms some
of
states the
a speech have of
act
that to states,
cognitive to of
something
is use
Generally, Pi
P2.
the
Chapter
explain so it are
in
discourse
issue the
state however at I
model hope to
is say
at about
inferential
sincerity is of not
speech own
interesting by of plan
explanation part
models, state
form
the
is
also be
of further. when
the
state
looking
assumed is an area
cognitive will be
that
greatly is
model. but
morality receive
something
model,
a complete
Thus the 1. an
aims
of
the
cognitive cognitive in
state state
model
preconditions detail as to
greater (Chapter
sequencing
occurs.
Four)
2.
To
use
the
ideas of such
of
politeness
to can speech
build be acts.
a used
more to
picture phenomena
(Chapter
3. are
of
the an
steps
that a
speech logical
(consisting
form,
pre-conditions
presumptions).
-117-
3.9
Formal
Speech
Acts
and Expressives
the
part
of
this
chapter, communicative)
a distinction speech something the very are speech specialised, correctly (Austin communicative sort of had 1985) acts
has and to
have
acts. acts.
needs acts
uttered 1962)
by by
Lectures on to the
before about
same
reservations, describe Austin's considered alone arrived speech speech much in both
attempted I should I am to
sort
of
act
the that to
and
formal
having
made
distinction,
detail.
they
two types
of
conventional effect
judgements
an official that:
context.
and Harnish
(op.
also
Conventional communicative
acts require
are
not
essentially
R-intentions.
is
not
so much
concerned Consider
the speech
uptake act
of
such
baptise, this there have does a acts is as also not formal are
assuming not
is parents as
always
Bach
being
that act
a speaker and
a communicative
-118-
different,
and it
would Hence, to
to the
try notion
to
fit of
into
speech
such have
the
sincerity that of is
conditions fundamental
seem to to the
act, act
breaks I could
conditions act
a lie. to
define bel(S
communicate speaker of
condition of breaking
by the the
-P).
The formal
sincerity
conditions
are
much different. the the declaration is in a marriage ceremony, tested to of slave before then they commit
we consider of
sincerity committed to
participants that
has been
two-phase a
consistent process an
where ready
update,
after
which
they
committed,
see Date
Additionally speech formal testifying which words, I acts. aspect may I might while
acts
may
be the Yet
under taking
involve
going
report several
different such
speech the
am also
testifying,
include is to
a speech least
act
class
as assertives,
For additional using consider indirect officiator wearing often an is indirect the the indirect acts. were
say the
formal analysis
dubious.
acts cannot be
that of
speech as
acts.
marriage with
correct might
you
precise to
is that
conceive
interpreted
swearing is
speaker
certain
-119-
indirect
forms
must
be judged
we must also
significant.
consider I in this where them expressive but than I want just to on the a the have class not of speech to this go. On acts any of
called
class the
one to to thank
Goffman
hand ritual,
show
least. it
analysis affect
adversely
3.10
Conclusions
chapter to
have
worked
of
several in
called can be
other a set to
up are
There
also act
which which a I
have
there the
have
making it
inferential hoping may Four. Secondly, cognitive pragmatic of surface Five. to to affect
Bach
The will
notion be
sequencing in
explored
Chapter
to
show can in
how be
act
descriptions conjunction
in with the
the the
section
to
choice in and
an analysis with
place by Bach
how,
appropriate to greatly
may be that
hope the in
overall Chapter
demonstrating
Six.
-120-
4.
Speech
Acts
and Discourse
Structure
4.1
Introduction
In of
the
previous
section,
I developed definition
definition following
speech
acts.
The schematic
separately i)
wants take
is or
as preconditions place.
to be communicated for example.
ii)
state
to
the
hearer,
perhaps
a want
iii)
A state
or
a set the
of
states of
that
enable that
the he is
speaker likely to
to get
sort
response for
the the
hearer. hearer
effect to act.
example what
act, do as
an understanding asserting.
what of we want
believe
speech or
he is
i. e. a result
believe
hearing
v)
An
action
that used to
what act is
sort to
of take. a
form
the
section
I hope to to put
indicate acts
speech for
act a has is of a
speech
framework above is
what
be communicated act is to
hearer.
If
point P) In
speech this words, conveying: discourse committed speaker's elaborate expressed also
communicate to the
then other as
state
discourse.
before
bel(S context. to P.
speaker way
expressed on the
P and in the
ways in
hearer
act.
The third
category it
has
on this,
because
-121-
describe act.
some
of
the
ways that
a hearer
may respond
to
given
Traditional about the to relations relationships warrant study (see without first
speech then it of
act
to
say that
speech
speech 1986).
interest
On the
an adjacency
is be able act to stand to
pair
as why,
constrains
a for viable
second.
theory to
say
example it
thought to
a speech
or to
indeed
specify of as
what
a speech to as well
hope help
as providing
an answer
some even
To that Si is with
pose
the
formally, used to
if
I make an
utterance act in
perform
constrain
hearer's
S2 with
question
propositional
is about of
content
the notion model we
sequencing the last have unrelated. categorise that mean speech just in
questions Si is
are
types of I
responses I
that
responses, am referring
of
response several
given
has
a total merely
explanation applicable to
that be am
is
no
less of
is all to
can
or
must
capable referring
discourse insertion
-122-
sequences. Before briefly hierarchical this explain this question moving on to the of "no", at all consider the main questions, speech I think does not but act it is worth and to not
examining levels is
discourse
explore
of P,
is
also can is
be I not form
If
or
so varied to predict
meaningful responses
Firstly,
about
what
can take?
the he may because hearer object of it. may have to it difficulties or the of with utterance an objection the mode may to of be it
An example
no need to in which
a case (2):
that,
its
rather
P2 that
noisy
to
in
some
here.
Pi after with Pi
common relationship is
relevance as of it does
P2)
P2 coming
relevant Speech
presumption need to be to we is
relevance. with
theory why of
relevance
a more case
then I is yes. it
can think
about this
sequencing? question
answer
is is
possible no
for
the
hearer
to
there
relevance topic
propositions, utterance propositions presumption sequencing other point words, a topic (see
however for
change Schiffrin
example and P2
Pi of
the must
relevance,
presumption, it change is
speech
acts place.
largely For
determine it would
example
-123-
to
introduce
a topic
immediately
after
question,
for
that
the was
way,
did
legislation
then
breathalysed
(4)
However rule is
if not
we consider just
the
response, two
a matter
questions
together?
that
'Model (6) is
brings call
us on to
final
category
response,
which
meta-speech
act For
is
one
that
relates
to
the
contents
of
example:
(7)
clouds weather
a mackerel
sky,
there
must
(8a) (8b)
Since
when did is
learn
meteorology. (mSi)
(S2)
What exactly
a mackerel
sky?
(8a)
is
another of
speech
act
following act. I
on hope
from to acts, be
is by to
sequences. idea of
meta-
introduced challenge they can pair. for then meta-speech sequences. a meta-speech then if it is I would only that a a we to be
Litman
(1985).
provide reason of
that
second of speech
parts acts
within
proposed
between functional. to
an ordinary If to It it is
I make in this
assertion, even to
expect grunt
hearer
react
some
way,
acknowledgement.
reaction
my assertion
-124-
form idea
the in
second
half
of
the
speech in this
act
pair
(I
will
describe the me as
considerable have
detail
chapter).
may not
understood I have
elaborate for
insertion between a as
to
of
speech for In
acts, the
sequence to the
seen original
hearer
the
hearer
assertion
he knows four
what
a mackerel
broad
categories
response
speech with
ii)
speech acts.
act,
a relevance
speech
of
iii)
topic,
which
is
constrained
according
to
sequencing
rules.
iv)
meta-speech that
act, is to (8b)
which
can be in
defined make In
as a the a
something reasonable example mackerel intelligent, I shall not consider mostly stated that still that is the
respondent order
was and in
relevance
is
not
be defined of to
as part
question
shapes there
response main
that
ways in Firstly,
can happen. may produce one of act. needs the you to plea the a response that is clear, in for order doing that bears a in
hearer to
states
making for
do P,
I am doing to the
so because plea is
a hearer
may respond
referring
we may define
a hearer's
-125-
of
responses
is for
way forms
by referring the
in
to act.
the
cognitive
states
that
act
as
preconditions
Another act I that shall it spend if I
speech
which
a response to this P, I is
may be the
related
to
the
speech itself.
some assert
chapter then by
chapter and be to
cognitive responses of
logically logically
attempt to
given
a sort
discourse
logic.
4.2
Cognitive
States
and Context
is
now
to
exactly of item
how speech of
the
presupposed acts. That Si cognitive acts? a "dance" draw a out graph some are and can five Flores reject add a is, and
states adjacent
relation
how do these
Winograd taking series structure conditions possible model): them that is or the received to Flores place of
speaker
possibilities (figure of courses 4.1). satisfaction. of the negotiate can also its within attempted for action hearer
A to request the
Winograd
firstly ask to
they
speaker or a new
request Each In of
response in turn
modify state
actions what of
leads and
graph. achieve
Winograd outline
have
conversational
structure
a request/response
model act
raises
an interesting of
within
(omitting also
complications
can they
be restricted
by a larger
-1264.1 Figure The Basic Conversation (Winograd and Flores op. cit.
for
Action p. 65)
A: Declare
A: Request
1 'l 2
B: Promise 3
B:
Assert
A: Accept B: Counter
B: Renege
A: Declare
5
A: Counter
-127-
by in
Winograd the
and
Flores? and
After Flores
of in
the fact
Winograd such
as promise,
on the
others
counter
there
are
levels is
of
that
serve
to to act, at
possible is it
a question Clearly,
regarded will
as adjacency it should
pairs
larger this in
not of If
structure
described
speech
acts. first of states all the speech to act the verb assert, in then the
it last
has
according
description
bel(x
-P)])
3) bel(S
4) Then merely will state utterance be true. want(S first
the
state the he is
speaker is
Hence has
spoken, that
committed the P is
fact the
hence
we can
know(H
simply
prepares hearer,
the
speaker because
for this
the is
fact an
he
by the it
speaker,
has no effect
on the
discourse
is and
concerned is of
with no direct
the
for when
considering Having
speech that
act an
upon
described
making
assertion
the to
context, the
consider
the
hearer's in any
likely way
responses constrains
assertion
an assertion
-128-
what to
follows
it. accept of
the
is
prepared
for
the
hearer
either First
will will
not
issue that
a meta-speech
on.
So given
bel(S to
P)) the context, the what possibilities of either are open to the
have
been
added
hearer?
bel but
Clearly
(H P) are of
we have
or bel others, speech
possibility
(H -P) ; consider act there and is would acts hearer it is The not first whether the be assertive an might assertive follow why have of each all the might act, the act an the a different follow act so an of many
there
hence act. is
final
a problem. an assertion,
clear the
consider
following:
(9) (10)
In (9),
A: B:
A
Your I will
is but is
presentation improve
what it if of it topic. the is is
is it for
might more not If
rather next
at like directly it is
untidy. time.
making in fact
first
sight
seem The to
like
an
problem it it
that
P then then
because is
hearer to
possible to the
provide
an explanation cognitive for promise him state speech act to states. was
so by
reference or
that
wanted
do P. approach
suggests we can
a method the to
determine back
constrains then in
Going to simply P) or
assertion,
bel(H
bel(H
'-P)
if other
epistemic, possibilities, of
modal
are on to
involved, examine
there these
are some
before is
explanation
these
operators
-129-
4.3
Speech
Act
Schemas
the
remainder logic
of
this
be using and
epistemic
as well I shall
deontic that
schemas different
questions: exactly
used to
can P represent?
represent modified of or a proposition by modal P or itself and where
has no if it into
explicitly
substituted operators
P has as
been and
schematic logic.
may represent
propositional
Hence
P may
such
but
not
necc (P)
However such some necc systems (1968). propounded important only six as necc,
the
same
does
not
apply reason
to why
poss
etc.
The
Firstly, have
in and system
Some of by
Robert and
systems system
S4 and
Langford
1932). namely
there op. to
system of of modal
systems is not
much
language.
no exact and
between occur
systems to analyse
possible to
have the
iterated cases
only
-130-
are
not
iterated,
namely:
poss,
necc,
-poss
and -necc.
bel (S poss (P) ) bel (S necc (P) ) bel(S bel(S Combinations not been
The deontic Hilpinen by Von
-necc (P) ) -poss(P)) of the necc and poss operators are possible but have
considered.
deontic logic. (1971). Wright analogy and the operators An extensive The modern 0(... ) p and of f come from logic logic that of and only is not and if systems is given were of in laid is a and For is only is basic
deontic of deontic
stated notions
there obligation
notions necessary
necessity and
obligatory
Permission three
Op <->
-P-p
& -p) in
are
not
that
p is
denoting
Wright acts the
permission.
stated that to
deontic
must of as of
be prefixed affairs.
and
not
intended implication
<->
(Follesdal (op.
Follesdal to of
state wffs
iterated not.
acceptable
(1958) logic
suggested
that
deontic the
logic
might schema
be reduced
modal N (-p
necessity S of is as one's
by means of
reduction
-> S)
and a 'bad duties. if in other S is thing' Hence and only a propositional or the if p is a sanction above -p constant. which formula results means implies and only if the it Anderson from
interprets violation P
obligatory S, the
(necessarily) if
sanction implies
words
forbidden
sanction.
-131-
It give
has
been
noted to
that
the
standard
of
can of use of we
rise
certain
commitment in speech
Chisholm's to do after
we need do
deciding ought to
we ought
we fail
something
do.
it
is
unclear
wffs they
should are on
be not the
this
leaves deontic
P (assuming they
operators to the
may only
apply
f (do (x P) ) -f(do(x This cleaner reduces to P)) to four because the two of the symmetry forms, of p and f. It is
eliminate
negative
leaving
us with:
f (do (x P) ) This of leaves intention. either between The do(x x denotes future.
two means distinct that is P)) types we must sometimes for your when example exam. used in In of logic the plus the intensional of between have ) to inform correct. You have their 0(do(S you
the
operator If
will,
which
could
the
operator
assumption affairs or
acts, them
operator i. e.
P),
rough P it
intention tense,
prefixes
future
means P will
happen
possibility
There
0(... of the
seems form:
On the
other
a sentence
-132-
to
...,
whether exactly
it
necessity has to
or do. refer (I
what
assumption deontic to
that operators
refer the in
do this and
consider although
cases
modals
practice to apply
sometimes in the
and cannot
analysis it is
This
means that to
however For
do so in prefix
A sentence to
pointing give
be:
up your to
operator
up your have to
example: indicates
I might that
sentence these
poss(f(do(H
possible. set of
consider
combinations
when examining
you will
you do P. e. g. I might
be used work
modal This
I will the
P,
I must bel
that
formulae
such
operator are
case,
between be a lot
simpler. the it
on P. you to
state
affairs
do P. or
be necessary you to
P to P. state
That
different
forbid
of that After
speaker hearer
of can
bel(S make
responses in P.
speaker's
expressed
my contention
-133-
is belief
that in
bel
the P.
(H P) the
hearer Firstly,
must
respond
in
some way
to
the
speaker's
we have
this the
is
simplest makes
case, an assertion,
the
accepts
P as
true.
Thus
if
speaker
(11)
in that order P, he
The daffodils
to only communicate has to
flowered
the say fact
late
that
this
the
year,
hearer also believes
something
like:
Yes,
Mm. hand, to the maintain this hearer the as: may not schematic believe nature that of the P. In this I
other order
formulae,
represent P) the
example,
speaker fifth
asserts
(14) in
Shostakovich's of artistic
symphony direction,
terms
fourth, in order to respond rubbish! with -bel(H P) the hearer only has to say:
(15)What
or
at
response
consider believes or
the that
modal P is
operators. possible, of
case either
is an has
expression just
a hedged the
speaker
asserted. (17)Kasparov
example, is the
strongest
ever,
To which
the
hearer
may respond:
(18)Perhaps. This has response expressed allows Perhaps Perhaps gives the an indication cognitive state: that P is bel(H a response tone} (but (possibly state the possible, poss(P)). sound like the Note either: think so) hearer that
us to {With (With
make such
I don't
tone)
expresses a pragmatic
cognitive enables
perhaps
device
hearer
to
-134-
possibility ) that: in
is
-poss(P).
For
example,
the
speaker
(state? Your a
my garden by the
again, of:
hearer
That's
possible!
(22)
He
can't
be,
blocked
up that
gap
in
the
hedge
that
the
effective
meaning
of
this
is
the
same
as
for
-bel(H
case
is
necc(P).
For
example,
if
the
speaker
(states)
(23) The
If
the
hearer
something
Well is
is
what
is
supposed that it
to is
stating I have
(Note almost
been using
speech
I shall these it
explain
I feel
shortly. is like
) When the
hearer
case,
a comment appended
assertion. next I group shall the form: to an this with the deontic do(x P). of operators on P are 0(P), the deontic fP and operators, pP. it When must as a P)). or speaker
of
which
'0(P),
considering be of the
P must case
hence is
used do(x
response Typically, sympathy states: (25) down, the hearer (26) The speaker he did by out not
(i. e.
consolation if the
example
I took
our
dog to
the
vets
this
morning
to
have
her
put
with: do it, he has about speaker not she was suffering. just doing, carried out an action that
and the
hearer
therefore
-0(P)
on
-135-
on the his
fact
that
the This
speaker
has done
over of
obligations. of
an action
kindness,
speaker
I booked are
may
you
in
a first
class
seat, evening,
like:
because
I know
the
very
respond
crowded
with
on Friday
something
(28)
The very consider the might that next
Oh, you
deontic upon
shouldn't
operator is the the
have,
fP. authority speaker with
its
The
very
use to states to or I
expensive.
of this operator forbidding. he has action, you authority, forbidden? becomes a ever done P. depends Lets If he do the If comment
much the
respect
then to the
is
forbidden, is in
speaker becomes in
hearer's neither or
a question: of
a position that of is
think sort in
forbidden. exists to grant for pP. It with is doing depends respect P, then very to if the of with within of as a
situation
much P. he
P matters, is of Well, is in in
hearer's a question.
permitted is is if in
do that?
neither
a position
respect your
to rights.
may come
a confirmation
P is
permitted:
we
must when it
the
operator
to P,
denote then
speaker in
there do P. as:
point
he will
utterance will(do(H
response
part. section, than the P). I have given examples needs that to be
this
looked
and this
explained. presupposed
cognitive to the
state notion
by assert
was bel(S
referred
-136-
of
in
one
of
the
that
manifests the
form, is state
when
example
studying an
am assumed (but
authority
knowing
necessarily line asserted. style would currently asserted theory. of not between
matter that
For Robert
I might
because to in is not be
open I
my garden. however
Exactly a problem
speech
give
the
rough
formulae
to
equate
assert
and
+ auth(S to P))
P)
= state
(S P) firstly that B)). the possible 4.1. the it Table state also on last the column or is lists responses 4.1 gives that the by that A is A is an authority over
aspects (auth(A to
an authority
summary directly to
it
table and
the to it
a. bearing in the
the
then
hearer's
the
case
poss(P)). to is
speech
there
and or
consider P. or
the
respond If the
agrees
with
accepts bel(H
the
suggestion, On the
then
he
is
communicating
cognitive
state:
poss(P)).
other
-137Table 4.1
The
Structural
Relationships
of
ASSERT/STATE(P)
State
State P) P) poss(P))
Authority -
Act
know(S
P)
bel(H
-poss(P))
auth(S
P) P) do(S P))
auth(S P)
comment know(S do(S P)) bel(H -O(do(S P))) auth(S P) comment thank question forbid comment comment rebuke confirm comment
know(S
do(S
P))
bel(H
f(do(S
P)))
P) P)
know(S
do(S
P))
bel(H
p(do(S
P)))
P) P)
-138-
hand,
reject if
it the
(-bel(H speaker
P))
or
confirm that:
it
(bel(H
P)).
example People of
seem to
be getting hearer [
by the be right.
think P) ]
official
statistics
I seem to P) ]
recall
reading
that
that
was the
case.
hearer except of
is
similar to
to be
seems that
the
speaker at
P. e. g. I saw
Saturn
I fancied
I don't bel(H
that's is that to
[with to the
something happen, in
responds confirmation The exchange (33) (34) When 0(do(S speaker the P)). to
this
case
becomes
P is modal
case:
I think It
the
will
take
on a regular
shape.
doesn't to
the
speaker the
state hearer
bel(S urging
poss(do(S
P)))
is the
or persuading
other acts A:
hearer
like
a comment, the
book
B: Don't
you have fP is
when the
consider my car
I might
leave to
do that?
forbidden. is forbidden.
authority)
-139-
to
I might your
(Authority with to
with B) do
(Authority allowed
that.
(Neither
party
The have cases:
has authority)
bel(S necc(P)) cases case: I bel(S shall and that P), not bel(S are -necc(P)) distinct for them. don't from the appear their sake of to
any
equivalents simplicity
therefore, consider
next the
case case to
is:
bel(S the
O(do(S
P))).
It that on P that
is the
also hearer
where
speaker
believes
do P.
operators to the
seem to speaker
expressed
are the
the
deontic
operators. duty e. g. to
speaker's
do P then
acceptance have
you did.
If
on
the
hand, he disputes
the the
hearer speaker's
that P
believes claim.
is
that
is
not
obligatory,
If authority from If the doing the
hearer over P or
is
an
speaker party of
sympathy is
speaker's
which If the
to
permit
response in
neither permission
a position hearer
authority, position
If is look
the
speaker to
that the
obliged
plausible it is which
bel(H for
or bel(H to believe
also
possible
hearer objection.
may act
as a form bel(S
cognitive
state
-O(do(S
P))),
which
may
be
The Structural
for
State
poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss(do(S P)))
bel(H
-bel(H
P)
P)
confirm
reject
P)))
agree as for confirm disagree urge convince comment as for as for assert assert assert
Table
4.3
Structural
Relationships
for
FORBID(P)
State
Hearer bel(H
State poss(fP))
P) P)
bel(H bel(H
dispute
challenge correct/inform
-141-
in
surface
form
as something to
like:
I don't
have
to
do a
appropriate In to
the something in this are
rather that is
than being
statement. it appears
of better
the
pairing in the
f,
position.
assume in You that are that Hence, and is it not is if an
You
allowed cognitive is
authority is it taking is
assumed this
important The to
possibilities party
authority. respect
speaker forbidden.
P is the
speaker to here. P
respect
a question by the
are
believes party is P. it
neither the
authority, the
case
with hence
accepts hedged
forbidden,
is
a form
acceptance.
A:
it
is rear
for
children
not
to
wear
B: Oh, yes,
speaker is
I think
an authority form respect the
defiance. P, then
expressed with
cognitive respect
infelicitous can be
being to know
hearer
case P is
where
the P
forbidden then
also
hearer
forbidden, important.
necessity
forbidden
doesn't
appear
For
the
next
case:
bel(H
-necc(fP))
we
must
make
the
-142-
it hearer
not
necessarily that
being it is
case
that
is for
believing act of
perform
state This
describes but
former impossible.
latter
unusual,
two
cases
involving
the
operator
of
obligation possible
(bel(H don't
and bel(H to
'-0(fP))
) although
theoretically
be important. hearer believes state: but you are not permitted to go in there. that fP this forms an acceptance of
A:
B: Oh,
that
I didn't
know.
while expressing the fact that this
P is to him.
forbidden,
known the
hearer if P.
believes neither
P is in
permitted, a position
then of with is
this
amounts with to P
a dispute to as
authority respect an
Where
the
is where
a correction, to P it for
a challenge state:
summarised
case
that the
shall
consider state: is
is
the
one pP). to be
in
which Once
the again
speaker this is
bel(S
an
operators: be plausible
hearer neither
respect
P matters.
example:
(49) (50)
The case:
A:
I think
the
red
lane.
B: Yes,
bel(H necc
perhaps
be with
of pP
no
The
look
any to
significance a dispute to P.
and party
leads with
authority
respect
(51) (52)
When the
A:
I think
the for
of
red buses
lane. only.
it is in acts a position as a of
B: No you can't,
speaker to his is in
authority, hearer
challenge
authority.
When the
-143-
authority correction.
The summarised Having expressed major epistemic The the hearer
with
respect
to
P the
response
by the
hearer
acts
as
of
the
cognitive
state:
bel(S
pP)
are
examined by the
some
the I
of
the
state another
bel(S in
a different
common do
of or
when to want(S on
the come P)
speaker about.
wants These
may be Note
no
do(H to
meaningful does be
want
hearer it to hearer is
want the
that P possible, to
case, make
speaker
wants
for
hearer
do Q in
P possible.
state: order
want(S etc.
P)) speech
occurs acts
in are
do(H to to
compound, do P, is In but
hearer
consider this
cases. as:
hearer P)).
willing this
speaker's to
carry if this
If then
The hearer
not serves
state:
do P in
expressed
hearer acts P))) for to P))), the
directly,
expresses
as a refusal.
bel(H poss(will(do(H (note it means that that it P)))) bel(H is for bel(H speaker's
as means
tentative soiething to If it
hearer
do P). then
the
-poss(do(H request.
If it is
the
hearer
the hearer
state:
bel(H to
necc(do(H do P
P)))
then The
a statement
was going
anyway.
The Structural
Relationships
of
the
State
pP)
Speaker bel(S
State pP)
bel(H
pP)
accept
Table
Speaker want(S
4.5
Possible
hearer
Hearer
Responses
State P)) P))
to
want(S
do(H
P))
Act
will(do(H -want(do(H
accept refuse P)))) tentative acceptance decline statement refuse/ favour refuse grant
bel(H
poss(will(do(H
bel(H
f(do(H
P)))
-145-
case state,
bel(H it
P))) likely
is
rather that
commitment will(do(H
by expressing that
cognitive going to
state
comes about to do P. It
hearer one of
feels two
under firstly
outcomes: to
he is
refuses do it bel(H is
request. sees to
hearer
perhaps
appears it
be irrelevant, as a
P))) P.
important
because to the
doing
The responses
summarised
case do P. In
consider the is
is
when is
the
speaker under
expressing
will(do(S calls
class
that
Searle
commissives,
examining. is possible out for the hearer in effect. taken will as do to which believe case The the that the P (i. e. that response hearer (we they that assume will do P
carried
a statement will
belief default
speaker if
someone
something
If
the
hearer
it is
is
possible
for
the
speaker
to for
a necessary will is
speaker that it
do P. not to
believes
do P his question
bel(H
response the
perhaps
The case:
of
the
speaker.
odd. On the by other the hand hearer as hearer). a
necc(do(S
seems
the
case:
indicates favour
promise the
(assuming
that
bel(H bel(H
hearer silent.
forbidden,
he may either
so or
-146-
Finally, P. In which
the case
hearer hearer
the
speaker the
will
not
do
the
believe
speaker.
4.4
Discourse
Pairs
and Cognitive
States
the
relationships it actually
thesis is
between is
various to
This the
pair,
constrains
idea
of to
act
pairs of
states It be
forms also
a has by
theory first
theory
which
uttered
speakers. and
(with
exceptions) preferred
must over
adjacent,
finally
certain
others. One situation although the question where relevant that two to has not speech the first acts been are not adequately adjacent, directly addressed but relate the to is the
second it. In
does
So do I.
relates saying: directly Yes, to I A's hate initial Mahler's utterance, works too. because Contrast
B's is this
A:
I hate but
Mahler's have
works. you heard to A's his initial the Ruckert Lieder? but does not be that are one. can directly
B: Ah, is it
response to
relevant
(although
between and
crucial
that but
distinction relate
When a response
relevant
does
-147-
to
the
previous of to
utterance, discourse
then
it
correctly
by
markers but
used
ways.
example:
speaker's study
viewpoint of the
a this
detailed work.
use of
markers
give
rise
to
several it not
and
further. themselves
taxonomies, of speech
refrained Many
verbs. a
the or
cognitive the it is For the we may if the the The So by larger units
as
a speaker can
be made a larger
hearer. from the state: the the On the P) and this the
In a
build the
structure
simple bel(S
speaker
expresses that
a response an
bel(H
this
response hand,
state:
bel(S call
hearer
then
we might for
speech units.
describe discourse is is to
desirable better
example, than
generally have a
an agreement
case state:
that
is want(S
out want
of to
do(H
P))). and is
(1983)
Chapter basis
such There
a theory arise
idea
of
speech
the act
acts
are
speech
acts,
then speech
Si with
related has an
that
speech
adjacent
-148-
speech Si -->
act S2 -->
is In
it other
possible words,
to can
infer
the
structure be that by For with possible, the hearer example, propositional up with
merely of
relational actual
speaker to may not Pi, P2. often (one be only but This
this
this
so).
example:
(57)
no bag meeting. me to
where in In
So I though
it'll
be an
opportunity
Another extended rise are to example would an
do it.
the which this to simple for case the pairing example further first pair idea a dispute speech (as act might be leads pairs
cases
functionally for
supporting
evidence
and
counter-claim).
2.
The
acts act
that
have
do
not
match is
important
example
accepted this
an answer because of
possible
certain may
surface
form
(interrogative), forms. Its in as: the you to P); the For the I'll question find
answers
no is
as well to Can
might
do(H
three the to
directly the
speaker the
second of P.
hearer third
In the that
action
might
being when in
answers
sense states
examined this
presupposed
-149-
person content P,
some
utterance some
with
expressing implicitly. a
cognitive
P,
either
or
makes
make
response directly relates B's here marked obvious implicitly his some
relates
P or in (The
relevance marked is
relationship,
which
this is
a response P but of
we can
then
secondary
speech
context,
need
adjacent act a
furthermore, perhaps by
discourse
marker.
3.
Since,
not arises
all
speech at
act all
verbs do the
analysed, act
the verbs
how if
speech Also,
the given to
above?
expressives I have
those
named as formal.
acts have such no place as: in
many
performative etc.
excommunicate, of discourse
suddenly of a
launch
marriage appear
just
everywhere. position)
a conversational
pair
expressive:
(58) Or they
I love
Shostakovich's in the
Tahiti
its
so witty.
may appear
secondary
(59) (60)
Trot?
-150-
There formal:
is
of acts
speech are
act
have
called in I am
concerned if I
"changes then
example,
something, of
after this
everyone
information. fulfilled proceed come of express made that be that sense in with it. my
something, know
them
then
something
bad
do not
cognitive
an assumption
information in
possession they in
it.
a sense
world.
Such acts
position. there that being a primary to as that it is a an speech form a act and a I
pair,
traditional
this
regarded for a
speech
acts
form
we consider cognitive
relationship us to precisely
two parts in
an answer
relation
a question.
Going through (1987) the groups some main them of speech into these order, to in act verbs groupings The first briefly, and set etc. they ask I
37 main groupings.
command,
the
such also or
decline,
many slot
them
decline
secondary allow,
more
often.
group more
including used in
accept
etc.
secondary
position.
Wierzbicka
also
gives
grouping
called
the
argue
-151-
this name
of
verbs For
are
not
speech only
at as in
dispute
secondary to In
to
occur
order P.
describe
stance, dispute. important sequence, then given structures acts mostly such as
P is surface than
form other. as
speech be
exchange position,
described
defends in
we have argue
an argument. are
group
or
name
such
Another the
to
secondary reprove
groups she
group
verbs tend to
share verbs
mostly
secondary.
4.
What
about are
meta-speech they
acts are
the
(introduced the
term idea of
above)? usage?
speech idea of: of
What exactly
A act
and what
act, act. as This Instead
rules
suggests
about
comes the
from
meta-plans A: B:
1985).
normal
sequence
sl
states
of
P,
described a itself.
in
terms
of act
or deontic to the
meta-speech For
example,
insertion
the
car?
answers,
that is
with (1) is
answer
There
no problem a question.
theory a meta-
a speech
forming
-152-
act to
of the For
for
the main
reason,
insertion
no problem
theory.
Litman plans executing etc. speech speaker given obtain relating sequences. In and
p. 28) that
as plans
specifying
plans, deal
clarifying the
acts, to above,
the
sequence to act
a meta-speech It is
that
enables
explain
4.5
The Thesis
Restated
In to be
the pulled
last
section,
ideas
which on in
need the
together. theory of of
and chapter
described
Chapter of a
work within
this
explain does
sequencing this acts, used to to speech yet) of that utterance It could there a by using
pairing In of an
speech I
relate several
proposition. in the set clear classified those speech speaker hearer, communicated that act. to terms speaker of
specified at the
in right as
detail sort
allowed and a
somehow
acted the
cognitive headings.
the
speaker
were of
states might
allowed by
sort there
response were
be made that
states or indirectly).
hearer
(either
described speech
speech acts
act
verbs
in
this it
forgetting possible to
and expressives,
-153-
live directives of
with
the and
framework commissives
by
Searle,
i. e. of these
assertives, in terms
an account
cognitive
states:
i)
speech
acts
in
the
Speaker
makes
knowledge speech
or belief acts in
ii)
wants
-
or needs.
speech acts in which the Speaker makes
iii)
intentions.
have
no wish
to
draw to
lists that is
of there looked
verbs would
to
fit
into
these
save lists.
point e. g.
be some
migration in
upon as an assertive
my scheme.
Many function own right act. agree speech in but act verbs they such are that the as not agree, names rebut of etc. serve acts to P, the in a dual their
an action if
takes speaker
place asserts
example the be
Thus
form-wise to another
and
the acts
discourse by
where
speech
are
connected sufficiently
a relevance restrictive
thought of the
allow except
analysis that in
between with
speech
previous speech acts this The which response discourse of of discourse, describing
hand it
adjacent to
same proposition terms act is the speech speech acts acts are not of the primary leading secondary act.
constrain primary
which
lowest At be useful
may be thought
paired. to
structure.
approach speech
gives acts
a basis the
for
explaining
the
and at structure.
describing is
into
discourse
complicated
-154-
meta-speech speech acts. Having theory, discourse notion such as The described going identifiable from move This acts, followed structure down of the it
acts,
which
act
as
speech
act
clarifying
or
correcting
this
theory
in to
of
existing it in
speech terms
act of
examine is of
the
pairing structure
a theory and of
hierarchical not
lessons speech describe a response not The and the to from Sinclair out
which level
were of
moves, of
speech speech
classroom broadly
ideas
presented
is
fairly
easy
to
see why,
in
situation
there response
not
line in
with the
levels
possible
speech at the
idea of the
Schegloff of
and Sacks
defined
as a sequence
two utterances
That
particular
part.
theory also speech They fulfils acts may of form course Secondly, they are ordered these criteria. of
speech the
secondary adjacent.
utterances meta-speech by
(insertion speakers.
sequences). Thirdly
are a
produced
-155-
first
part
part,
there are
is
Finally, certain
typed
also
provides seconds).
some
explanation
preferred
(and
to
an I the speech of
on the
certain bel(S
pairings
cognitive P)
or want(S acts In
do(H
speech
prevent
disputes
from
Chapter act
Five,
consider
the
relationship
speech
modal language
-156-
5.
From Speech
Act
to
Utterance
5.1
Introduction
The
chapter speech
described acts of
state doing
elements a
so provide structure
integration
and discourse
sequencing this
relationships. look at surface forms and their form to look might for
components for
describe act,
a particular the
speech theory
Chapter speech in
I put because
idea
that
presupposed a
speaker
uttering hearer
us some idea In to
example
responses the of
relate consist
actual
linguistic
This
sentence
and their
an examination modal chapters. In best forward types" sentence distinction because whereas interrogative primitive) This point speaker request will is an is carrying and
auxiliaries that
operators
earlier
out
this
exercise,
that point to to a
it
is be
at put
However acts is is
be
"base
because type.
particular to make a form, form, the (or types. the main the a same
example,
possible
correspond speech
taxonomy
declarative as for
be interpreted direct
again,
interpretation).
-157-
to
sentence, (I in shall
which consider
is
not the
going case
to of
be so
this of
be said
boast. particular
upon
being
boasts example:
employ I
do not second of
Royce?, someone of
modest
distinction to context
between
a boast
say a is
between an one of
Japanese
ladies
You have
a beautifully at all,
B: Oh no, of the
B: Well,
to Britain,
keep
it but
looking in
be acceptable
Japanese
as boasting. that uses is a speech pride act such as boast is not thus a cit. )). with an so much entailing pragmatic an
as a mode of an assertion
rather
that
maxim of of this
modesty section
second of
modal
Another similar to to
organisation suitable
analysis part of of I is
determine
would
include
markers, to
specialised use of
chosen in
although, which
discourse on
Appendix grammar
on speech forms
acts
markers. I then
examined
sentence act of
and modal
auxiliaries,
speech part
taxonomies. this is chapter, based on the I proposed speech act a speech recognition act
schema,
which
-158-
of
(1979), explaining
except
that
it
is
intended is
to
form as it
chosen excludes
This
indirect
which theory
be discussed be regarded
Chapter
to
as valid, to of
support speech of
example, perhaps
there According
ought to namely:
be three et al.
structure. types of
Quirk
are
sentence, (note:
statements,
Quirk
et
than
a--id it
as a speech In declarative of
(with
the
statements),
and it
generally
precedes (4)
Questions following i) ii)
verb,
saw Mary
sentences
the
are
telescope.
marked by one or more of the
devices: The The auxiliary positioning is placed at the immediately beginning of before an the subject. or
interrogative
wh-element.
rising
intonation.
Will
John
sentences imperative
form:
instant.
statements is introduced are by what sentences or how: which have an
(7)
Comparing declaratives questions speech statements assertives assertives.
What a noise
these to or act forms
they
with
are
making.
acts, we can can roughly be equate to
speech
assertives, and as
interrogatives commands command, hand although appear they may be order to seem be
equated to certain
on and
the
questions,
to
-159-
5.2
The Four
Basic
Sentence
Types
Quirk i)
et
al.
(op. cit.
give
seven
basic John
clausal is in is
John
John met Mary. adverbial): John met Mary the dance. held the at
verb
v)
SVOC
(subject
verb
object
complement):
John book
vi)
SVOO (subject
verb
object
object):
vii) Of the
John the
speech is to
subject,
verb
important himself,
denotes or
whether
hearer
something the
important significant, be of
may be seem to an
significant
verbs
particular analysis.
importance,
so much so that
be given
extensive
sentence into
category three
is
the
interrogative
form
which
questions:
Wh-questions supplied.
iii)
Alternative be chosen
questions from.
usually a rising may words For speaker the other be it
that
supply
two
or more options
to
are using
formed
by
putting
the e. g.
questions other
such
you to, of
restated In this
thought acts as
you
a combination
-160-
an you
old
(that
you
can as
drive) a speech
with act
question in are
suggested there
Searle's different
difficult as other
positive/negative poses using no problem a form where believed possible some not
dichotomy by having
cognitive
previously it is
illocutionary cognitive
give
indication
presupposed
orientation while at
allow seek
the
speaker
to
his A I
confirmation be paraphrased
question believe
with that P,
a positive
might
am I correct? of question with is the tag question a negative which consists for
Another of operator
form plus
pronoun, has
is
or without hasn't
of
particle,
example:
Here the vice four
The train
there
left,
it?
positive then is and the quite negative tag subtle is in negative and there that if and are
a crossing is tag
clause use of
positive questions
forms:
i)
Positive e. g.
+ Negative his
with work,
rising d6esn't
He likes
He likes
work,
He doesn't
(positive
iv) Negative e. g.
assumption
+ Positive like
+ positive
with his falling work,
expectation)
tone. dries he?
He doesn't
(negative
assumption
+ negative
expectation)
The meaning
The his iv). meaning work,
of
of am I
i)
ii)
is:
I assume he likes
other is hand is:
his
I
work,
assume
am I right?
he doesn't between iii) like and
on the There
right?
a similar
contrast
-161-
is
also
type got
of
a is
question, to a declarative
but
be
The next with which, resemble (8) or the aid when, yes/no Would
group of
of
questions
are
wh-questions
which
are
formed what,
or Q-word: Alternative
who/whom, questions
whose,
may either
example: spaghetti?
like,
chocolate,
vanilla
or
raspberry? There questions generally speaker are and invite feels two other minor types questions. hearer's about. noisy category of in response e. g. there. of sentence forms from verb. all in are commands. in The that of questions: Exclamatory to something exclamatory questions that the
rhetorical the
strongly it
(10)
Wasn't
major
common category
command differs
a statement It
toned is except
such of
please.
subject absent
usually in
a command and so
(11)
or
You,
be quiet!
close
the
door. by placing Negative of et. the al. let in front may Don't be go!
achieved Do may
by adding be used
what
persuasive
imperatives: (13) Finally, mentioning: their generally initial Do have another are glass. two categories which of sentence resemble except that are worth in is
there firstly
exclamations, of
placement
a wh-operator, inversion:
no subject-operator
-162-
(14) The
What a lot category there What also that Suffice of are about
of is
people what
we met! Quirk irregular et al. (op. cit. p. 203) such as: call
second
certain the
wh- questions
elements
such
say we lost. survey is it to is identify possible the to basic match sentential speech act
and to them.
see whether
evidence to see
that whether
I it
am seeking is possible
in
this to
is
threefold: speech be able sentential how instance, I view way will be that marked. discourse that the act to
onto in
and
possibly the be
why to
of
hope
show for
here,
of
however examination
reasons would
decided
reasonable
5.3
Speech
Acts
and Sentential
Structure
this
section, and
I will
concentrate
on
whnext to then
questions
to
might that
However Quirk et or
complex p. 192)
forms
have
be considered. with
consider A question
al. that
call
quantifier For
suggests
'some
none'. whereas
a question example:
positive
(17) (18)
someone com'
-163-
(17)
remains
neutral, for
(18)
explanation cognitive might certain question speaker want is which provides acknowledges Negative Quirk once et al. to firstly is is be
a positive If
poss(P)) it
and wants
case,
positive saying,
orientation. I think
effectively sure. it
between
respect is
orientation, (op. that confirm P) but bel(S Once again, the speaker cit.
as
state,
implies
believed to
case,
other
P may not to
confirm for
reasons to
such in
evidence
support his
a change and at
tentatively the
putting hearer
forward
thesis
the
acknowledging
second form of
as an authority
question you left
on P matters
combines yet? This not is
negative
orientation e. g. Haven't
positive to forms
disbelief.
main are
category also
of
is (1974).
the
In
order
to the
terms where
of the
cognitive speaker
possibilities
that (assert)
P is
P is
the
case,
and I want
you
to
know
about
ii) I to know
the
case, to say
and this
I believe (state).
that
you
have
accept
my ability
iii)
P is
the
case, it.
that
it
is
my
you about
-164-
iv)
believe
that
P, but
it
is
something
on
which it v) I is
me whether
believe
something that
on P?
which
you are
an authority, iii).
to
be the
case the
where is of
the
speaker
knows that
hearer
and is question
negative
a rising
tone,
take the
sugar,
means it i).
speaker case
the
or not.
a negative
question that it
iii), will be
on
the
other
hand
is
made
with these
the are
confirmed.
Epistemically,
cases.
questions to where
e. g. type i)
sugar? iii)
appear tag to
to
be very and
linguistically to be used
questions be) a
the
answer
foregone of
on the
other
epistemically
the
exclamatory
question,
e. g.
well! agreement What the to something assumes question strongly response. speaker is that is the that may in speaker bel(S act as P) a
speaker
seeking by making
agreement,
the
would
avoiding of
there
has this
far
an issue
stylistics
one of
-165-
other cit.
sentence of It which is
category the
is
the
(Quirk no subject
et
simplest that
imperative in the
noteworthy
auxiliaries may be
do toned
occur by
imperative use of
sentences, markers,
however such
commands as:
politeness
(21)
Please,
shut
the
door. to express will wants carry of the an speaker action when which
hearer
out
satisfies
serve
in e. g.
the
function
that
pointing don't,
a pupil).
Negative
commands are
formed
by the
(24) In addition
Don't to
window. there al. this are also persuasive p. 202), but imperatives, they refer to
forms, et in
as such
(op.
cit.
sentence
category
as commands)
e. g.
(25) This
Do go with to
appears
as an order primary
without
the to
of of the e. g.
except where
speaker
expresses perhaps to
desire hospitality,
perform (26)
Do have
Its
use
as a form Do pipe
section of by
admonishment
(27)
This of be the
down.
is for only a survey of surface forms, cannot only of states of no nor a speech indication how particular The just of can the give in cognitive terms of however satisfactorily act verbs the terms why of some
variety
explained an
a theory
speech
without corresponding a verb, are forms theory, illocutionary that range are of
examination acts. If
underlying act in of
e. g.
there
so many may be by
to
question. not
terms act
cognitive us reasons
by
the types.
speech
-166-
5.4
Modal
Auxiliaries
and Cognitive
States
cognitive
state
theory are
uses bound
and
modal
auxiliaries cognitive the modal course of the states. cognitive logic any
use
simple existence
arose theory
acts
ought
to
some includes of
variety
structures, (or
existence be totally in
usage The
terms taken
of
missing examine
approach
semantically appear in
are
conveying section
been
for
previous
missing
commands.
Will
The future
modal tense.
will
to (op.
some, cit.
be used p. 47)
to
denote will
the as
describe
future. tense
However in such
no future in
English as He
sentences
arrive habitual
make a prediction. a simple will cross to al. the (op. habitual her
dissolve e. g.
into She
equivalent Quirk et
sentence cit.
p. 55)
four
meanings
Used in cup of
Mainly
polite
requests,
e. g.,
Will
you
coffee?
used time. in the first person, e. g. I'll
ii)
have
iii)
Insistence.
e. g.
He will
keep
going,
whatever
you say.
-167-
iv)
et
al.
define e. g.
three
forms will
of die
The hero e. g.
e. g.
the of
some role
in
defining
sentence
I will
variant
if if
[he]
asks.
you ask. meaning person the to the first and to third have it
second In
person. the has mainly person, will between modal, will. for
sentence in the of
person
however
can occur
e. g. keep
I will going,
leave that by
whatever and
intention i. e. insistence
the
person prediction
is
first
and second
denote law.
between
and a universal be a linguistic and other and still case to for its
There of will
the it
use is
meaning, For
not
rephrase
another
cup of
coffee?
Please
have
another prediction:
cup of
coffee?
indicate
dies
in
the
last gold.
act.
not
stopped. e. g. I'll denote given see you when I have intention, above. neither However it
when used it
indicate
intention,
cannot
-168-
He keeps
going,
whatever
you happen
to
and that
(1977)
its
other
the to
are
of
secondary.
(future) tense when poss is an from put in refers as the to from that current a
and
this
being
However in a future
something world.
More it is
from the
the
point
of
view
of in
speech
act
worth In the
operator will
will
conjunction on the it
person. the
intention
speaker.
however, habitual
may also
denote
form). states
second these
insistence.
The cognitive
(do (S, P) P)) P)) gives us no real a commitment two cases are problems, and making not in a stating that I of the seen such with or for
so obvious. case
first,
predictive If we easy
is
predictions, a habitual I It
whether
we are
a prediction If
depends
described.
example (35)
weather,
Aberystwyth,
talking
abo". t a habit
based say,
On the to
other
predict
habits
animal,
example:
When the based the cat comes in it will The sit modal in front use of of will the fire. gives no
habits.
-169-
person leave It
is
more tricky,
a sentence
such
as:
insistence. as:
request Would
is
as: be so good
in other is
(39)
The carried indicates command whereas requirement hearer. the In intention
as
to
leave
that it using carry to get
immediately.
is the out the likely modal to be will A
to
command. done,
will future
the
speaker have
a by the
must
been
a sense, of between
invoking do P.
counter is a in a
not
person, to it acts it an
do P in as is
a future
a prediction used in
true
world it
when
second that P)
speaker will(x,
operator
provide
an explanation
The modal Will simple rhetorical speaker: (40) When party's used Will with you do P? form of or
will
may also
be used also
in
the in it by
I the
be a party third
to
person
intention: (41) Will similar as: he come this to its evening? the second person. This may be
This
is
use with
expressed
want(know(S will(do(x
When sentences to hold used simply true for in the negates questions. all
P))))
form, the positive will in forms. simple declarative The same appears
negative
-170-
CAN
Quirk
et
al.
(op.
cit.
p. 52)
list
three
uses
for
the
modal
can:
i)
For to
example: it.
it
if
you
set
ii) iii)
For
example:
Possibility. by snow in
winter. poss(e). Can I can onto in the the lift table, may be the He
by the to
operator
denote the
ability: chair
onto
the
chair is
to
Although ability.
second
person,
modal
In order pP.
stressed
represent
permission, possibility
we simply can be
use
the as
deontic simply
Theoretical is it go now? an
represented in the
interesting is treated as
case: an
informal
This for is
schematic a request
person the
speaker not
denote
depends means:
propositional to do P? or
whether him
give
permission
do P? For
example:
Can he go now? Can he juggle declarative of permission: unstressed for is the third
Permission) skittles? (Questioning use of can to. ability). denotes In a the The
form,
unstressed
statement second
I want
person,
a distinction consider
and may.
I shall
MAY
Quirk i)
et
al.
(op.
cit.
p. 53) For
give
two uses
for
Permission. o'clock.
example:
ii)
Possibility.
For
example:
It
may be a rough
passage.
-171-
there intention:
appears
to
be a third
use,
may can
also
denote
you tomorrow. be distinct P))). may is to a polite be less form correct, but may as from possibility and can
poss(will(do(S indicate is
permission, generally to
modern remains
has tended It
formal.
operator person
Whereas
may denote
second (46)
In
the
third
person,
seems rather
odd to
use may to
permission: (47) He may leave use for now. may is to denote possibility in the third
annoyed
with
we consider person it
exclusively
now?
for
permission:
(49)
May
leave
It
is
also (50)
used
in
this
way in to used
the leave in
person:
It
doesn't
second
person
in
the
should
make
clear
the
distinction
(51)
can get
(Spoken
on a fine
summer's
day)
Theoretical -
Possibility.
pass
iaay be blocked
by snow,
so lets
go by the
Possibility). between theoretical the rather ability like possibility to talking do and ability. something, about an and object
talk
someone having is
theoretical
possibility
-172-
having
the (53)
ability
to
do something: can dissolve as: ability possibility why can is used to dissolve to gold. ability than and may. this gold.
Aqua Regia be
This
could (53a)
re-phrased
has the
Hence perhaps
we
theoretical reason
explains
rather
SHALL
Quirk i)
et
al.
(op.
cit.
list part
three of the
uses
of
the in
modal the
speaker
second what is
example:
He shall
receive
ii)
on the
part
of
the
only
used
in
the due
person.
For
example:
you know in
iii)
or 35b.
legal
injunction. shall
For
example: the
We shall property
do in
The tenant
maintain
throughout.
use in to or the be
of
shall
to
denote
willingness person is
on the interesting
part
of
the it do be
second
and third of
because to will
the
intention something to of
at
intention
intention usage
and this is
restricted on the
and used in
third in this
the form
person
only
merely
analysis
interchangeable marked (i. e. example: receive the subject denoted ... subject will by the
legal with of a
injunction, dynamic
use of the
a verb The In
subject
agent
shall
maintain case it is
former
... insistence In
as opposed or
injunction case, is
do such be the
a thing. of
the
by use of
the
operator
do(H P)).
-173-
SHOULD,
OUGHT and
MUST
Quirk i)
et.
al.
(op.
cit.
) list necessity:
four
uses You
of
and
should
ii)
Putative this
should
iii)
Contingent to move to
I should
love
iv)
Real
conditions.
me kno-T. view of cognitive states, There is a only very the first strong regardless of obligation use link of
the
point to the
have first
any importance. use and the should ... by: O(do(x represent all
operator a statement
I/you/he is
represented
The obvious the use of Ought expectation. interchangeable (54) This by use now. to They is It not is a state as: are may should may
way to
is
to
use:
necc(P)
but
obligation, or is a
or
obligation there
appears case:
specifying almost of
obligation previous to
operator example up
affairs. situation
could result
This finished. be
yield
the
used of
to
denote
or
compulsion
or
obligation
There
wrong.
cases 0(... )
5.5
The Logical
and Pragn-itic
Use of
Modal
Auxiliaries
with
modal function
is 1987)
they is
have difficult
both
accept
cognitive
approach,
then
-174-
it
to
modal
are but be
used
to
speech of of
surface
pragmatic auxiliaries
use of are
modal to
modal
indicate
possibility, obligation
ability,
these of
operator poss(do(x to
case
time
they
reach
fifteen
or
(58) But
The
leopoard
can climb
sentences ability
distinction blurred,
sports
This
suggests
distinction upon to
dependent correct
seems
describe
using
. Possibility
itself
is
slightly
different,
when I
say
for
example:
(60) I
I am not
may leave
but
tomorrow.
my ability committing poss. It to do so, as There be used a is to possible another express
so much
expressing without
of call
the
operator
hedged
predictions,
It
may rain us to
tomorrow. represent P)) poss(P) poss(will(do(S poss(will(P)) will modal in these examples. are intention, insistence P))) this group as follows:
allows Ability:
poss(do(S
Theoretical Possible
Possibility: intention:
The second
group
meanings
-175-
An example leave
of
intention morning.
is
I will of
tomorrow is car
insistence
You will
move that of
now. is:
prediction tomorrow.
intention
is: However,
P)).
can
being to
the
that the
do P, a refusal
accept
this
better,
compare hearer
a prediction
unstressed,
(65) sell-by
Whereas, conveyed appears purpose that hearer. the
fall
ill
tomorrow
because
that
its
will is:
is
always will(do(H
when
of
speaker
a refusal
on the
by the more
modal formal
auxiliaries
can
may is
now and
as pP.
However I
aspect in its is be
shall
consider
use of This to
the
modal us
must, with
represented modals
leaves
Three
commonly deal to
denote first:
must
may be used
e. g. o'clock.
me that
you must
be back are
suggests in
oug'zt of
as descriptive I say:
owing
circumstances.
-176-
to
(should)
finish is
your
Ph. D. that is
expressed suggests
as White a set of
p. 140)
something a
circumstances. to
at states, way the modal auxiliaries it is
This use of
modal it is
suggests modals.
than
Looking
logical
more to
aspect
directly
the
the
these
and sort
auxiliaries in
use
of
modal then
being
denoted
For
permission: a third to of
himself to ask
something. of analysis
We find enables
there to build
a more
relationship
between
logical
and
pragmatic
auxiliaries.
the in
modal
auxiliary
can: sentences.
its It
main is
uses not
are
meaningful
grant
permission, the hearer). and such has little the case of: in is ability
but It
a third to
speaker three
such
an act
meaning
around ability
our also in
use of for
can to
the
speaker
state
When we come to denote the is slightly can is theoretical distinction blurred. used more
non-personal
pronoun though
possibility, between
as I pointed possibility
previously, ability
theoretical
in
the
form,
its
use
is
though
person,
do P.
sometimes
as a request
-177-
and speech
I shall acts.
consider
this
in
Chapter
Six
when I examine
indirect
used In (or
in the
the
form it
to is
denote used
possibility only to
or denote
first
as I have to ...
earlier,
intention). of
compare
use as modals
permission. permission meaning If I am able hand, checking does has modals In permission, meaningful hence there to
may be used
do P. is
I may hand cannot have this the other on ... interesting is so. to speculate why this permission i. e. I have to hearer for This to do P, ability this to not only has meaning if
I am granted to do P,
the
do P. On the necessarily to do P,
other mean
granting to
ability to
but
it he the
hearer perhaps
the
this
the
may is the
only
used
to it
becomes hearer
grant
permission
is
no second of
modals
of
cognitive the
states
modal
operators
many of
problems use of
interaction
and pragmatic
auxiliaries.
5.6
Speech
Acts
and Discourse
Markers
Studies much culturally comprehensive on New work discourse explain theory starting a observations Yorker). in
of
discourse based.
markers Schiffrin
that
their
use is gives a is
of
their
use,
although type of
account (The
some of
seem to that
the
part
discourse what
has been
seems
appropriate
Having of speech
several (Chapter
with on to
the
Searle the
model role
examine
-178-
that
speech
might rival of
have
to
play
in
structure, Three I a
approaches. act as an
a speech to
states)
the act,
hearer. which
form
speaker's the
cognitive cognitive
form.
remaining an by an in
represent
the
the
speech form.
from of the
surface
explanation terms of
The (or which then his preferred are
use of
a particular that
of this
act
can be given
the
cognitive
states
effect and by if
its
act
description.
is the (the by way. the presumed rules of
preferred is carried
hearer
does
be marked
cognitive
state
that in
is
transmitted of
between
terms deontic
basis,
speech that
groups: taxonomy
those
assertives of the
and those
express
want
speaker
intention. cognitive
assertive
form
communicates
to
the
hearer
a cognitive
state
want It is
also
to in
think the
of form
commissive
speech
act
as
cognitive speaker
states and
there
are There
positions are
of four
authority possibilities: 1.
hearer.
The speaker if
is
in
an undisputed that
position from
of
authority. atopic
For eczema,
example
I state
my son suffers
-179-
then unless
would of
not
expect they
the
hearer to of that to
to be the
dispute my son's
the
fact, general
course
can give is in a
to
held with
the his
hearer subtly
position speech
This an
can
act,
example
becomes
(70) are
(Client worth
to
stamp
Four three
margin margins?
penny
blacks
substantially
3.
of
authority
is
disputed.
For
example
in
an
4. two
It be formal is
Neither individuals
of
authority. at
For a bus
example
exchanging
that position
niceties
may an to
stop.
have in to a on I
authority
sometimes
individual being
of yet the
P matters), choose this describe of a that role used authority recognised I to by have play. both to acts
than
hearer. Berry
case, describe
used term
(1982) of in
situation. the
position is
to
speaker
primary
where the
is
subordinate polite).
more can
polite), have of
(perhaps speech
conveying
states
want.
to
the
cognitive types of
that a the be
two basic
Looking directives.
a want
classes: state:
questions
communicate
cognitive
want (S P) Requests want on the other hand communicate the cognitive state:
(S do(H P))
-180-
5.7
On A Taxonomy
For
Speech Acts
have in
several of der
to of
the act
variety verbs.
of For and
Searle
and
an Harnish(1979) verb-based
in from
terms
than That in to
verbs, is this
attempting speech
certain
Austin's should
largely baptism
be
verb-based. be are
described? verbal regret, using cit. ) and act argue. actions apologizing a that I etc, have not
Additionally, considered these Searle included speech such should and in acts Van their at
categorised (op.
verb-based
speech
verbs
appear
example:
the
problems is
with that
with by
taxonomy
dependent two
upon the
example,
syntactically different
similar speech
declarative acts,
sentences
may be interpreted
as very
consider: (71) (72) I made a mess of I made a mess of part of the the putty caviar to on the on the a joiner work. some speech what the this to speaker window. Concorde. as a request (72) acts says, might to have
(71) a look as
forms at
a conversation
be seem be also
boasting.
perhaps
expressed Taking
judged
as a speech therefore
and
course act
concerned structure
with and
speech
theory
-181-
have
arrived states.
at
a theory There
based
on
the
notion to
of base
cognitive upon
cognitive It
this
would
types expressing
belief that
up speech speech
categorise states (see
Furthermore,
problems
idea
acts action
description difficult
Chapter that
Three). there
believe of
ought i. e. it
to might
an of
can
cognitive
a certain This
amount flexibility
flexibility makes
a speech undertaking. I in
a taxonomy
difficult
also
believe of pairs,
that
certain e. g. difficult.
speech
acts
can and
only this
terms
an acceptance,
undertaking
even
more
5.8
Model
of
Utterance
Generation
out
to of
do two speech
things act
in
this in
thesis: discourse
firstly
to
provide i. e.
theory
structure, for as to schemas. go to back describe structure state of the of a pair notion to
acts
as building
blocks
discourse how it is
structure, possible to
and secondly derive the Chapter speech speech binds acts acts) in heart act (or is surface first Four. acts acts the perhaps
Consider schemas role pairing effectively speech speech described at its that of
these,
we need to attempt discourse cognitive The notion if both one rejects rival
These have to
schemas play by in a
together. acts, in
Chapter the
approach closely to
adjacency described
speech
pairing
The adjacency
-182-
has
four
characteristics: to are Secondly, speakers, of a first is be adjacent explained the again adjacency part also
the
two
component apart of be -
parts
are
sequences theory in parts to that part. the applied may this they In
insertion meta-speech
terms must
component applies is
by third i. e. state
pairs
have
component to the
of
an
are
typed.
state to the
second This is
the
appear
may be partly in
or
explained
specified
notion with
much greater
introduced of the
appears not
pairing idea in
Furthermore, models, includes exchange essential: applies would ordinary (1981) model eliminated. response. discourse approach. It be to for a
Coulthard
p. 26)
level
exchange. only feedback. feedback pedagogic) inappropriate, the Sinclair from the
consists initiation,
moves response
which and
a classroom a sound
situation
modify the
everyday This
feedback of
initiation between
appears
ground
analysis
conversational
analysis
basis
of in
the virtue
cognitive of
state
is
that
speech by In order
acts the to
a cognitive or steers
presupposed part.
a discourse rules
based act
on speech pairs to
build A the
speech is effect
example responds
asserts with
he agrees
The Formal
Model
the
time
attempt
to
how
may be generated
a particular
schema,
-183-
incorporation chapter.
of I shall model
forms modify in
have basic to
to
wait
until of use
adapt
Model.
The Linguistic
capable of
Presumption
determining in its
(LP) becomes:
the meaning form and from
The
presumed the
E generated
base
In
other
words
the
Linguistic share
Presumption set of
is
a basic
speech
represented a thing of
e. g. and
generated
The modify Directness the I of good will speaker
a declarative
Presumption of
shall of of which
Literalness to avoid as chapter. the the assumption speaker from therefore: the
have
chosen
opposed In
speak act
generate Presumption
a direct of
speech
Directness
speaker
will,
unless utterance
there form
is
a good
reason the
not
to
do act
use a direct
Ud to
perform
speech
to
these,
I require in the
a Pragmatic
Presumption act
assumes
some speech
be a shared
mechanics of the
speech
act
example, the
the true,
wants at the
same time
recognises force is
The illocutionary intended is to forms to being define from convey. conveyed the speech
effectively are
cognitive allows of
state us
for Here
the
surface
I shall
-184-
three acts);
basic
speech acts
act which
assertive
directives Finally
would
be expressed
declarative
Speaker to
recognizes
his P.
wants, Speaker
beliefs
and
recognizes to this P. he
with Si.
respect From
Speaker generates i)
form
Speaker operators,
Speaker
modifies if any.
declarative
form
(Ui)
ii)
Directive reflect
modifies with
form to P.
(Ui)
to
Speaker P.
modifies
feelings
perception
of
In proposing actually modal that parallel. auxiliary required the order example, I directly research theories surface strategy to or
this
strategy, in
I am making
no assumptions for
about
what
processes, later, it
example, claiming it
I am not that
happens, claiming
occurs of
addition in
clauses speech
reflects change an
changes assertion of
utterance
assertion
regret
justifiable
acts
do not avenue
map of to of
grammar example
and Berry(1975)).
-185-
6.
Indirect
Speech
Acts
6.1
Introduction
One of always into Searle's theories indirect section reasons. authority. accordance particular Three. Levinson factors acts, parties If been the
greatest problem In
difficulties of this how to section, Speech Acts which The idea speech may
speech indirect
act
theory speech
has acts
work of
be developed for of
in
shall the
my ideas
speech
previous developed of of
"use"
that
avoidance is one of
behind then
politeness
indirect of face
attempts
made to speech to
a loss
making are
a request.
In with the
this
argue
as knowing or if
request object in
hearer place
something,
whether than
Therefore act
rather
request is an the
the to the
indirect hearer
servicing to service
example, hearer
be able being
requested
or even
service
treat salt,
all
requests not
for
such not a
we would such
service
a request.
hand might
requesting be difficult
our
request. are
I intend used
to which
strategies parties to
requesting face.
-186-
Other of additional
indirect
acts
of
the
of
Q. If,
simply in
so much the
making
contention has what
that with it
each a set or
speech of
type
(such states,
as which to
knows the
believes that
P,
speaker is on an P
perceives authority matters, a speech speaker expects associated speech there everyone) with the act are
hearer P
knows
or
about
associated to convey
a description hearer response hearer act and to may pair). be act This what P.
the It
to
believe
respond
the
strategies to perform
used of
politeness or plan.
requirements.
schema
in
Chapter
Four, to for
I examined form
how speech of
acts
may acts
cognitive
a pairing
speech
as a building states
may lead
an argument; there
as these exist
most form
may well
Even worse, requested do P then this Rather speech is more acts that
speaker
wants
to
has to
does
we have is
incompatibility.
Again
in
terms to
avoidance it in terms
threatening
logical
a strategy
-187-
pairings which is
of turned model
After face?
all,
According it
1987),
he cannot in
grant
notions model in
politeness chapter.
conjunction
cognitive
6.2
Searle's
Theory
of
Indirect
Speech Acts
(1969) that
first
proposed
the
of in
indirect Searle
speech (1979).
Searle,
may utter
sentence:
merely
as a question
but
as
request
pass
salt. p. 30).
in order to understand to relying both with the on the the an hearer on their linguistic general part of the indirect more mutually and powers hearer. speech than he act:
(Searle
Searle the actually background linguistic, rationality states
speaker says
communicates by way of
shared nonof
op.
cit.
he states include:
of
act
theory
speech and
of factual
the part
together make
hearer
inferences.
p. 32).
presented except
in
this that
chapter
will
not detail
approach order to
understand it
visualised
brought (Searle
would
be illuminating
go to to
movies for
study
an exam.
-188-
The
question
that
arises
is: of his of
how does
Y's
describes act He at
statement together
the
secondary of is
illocutionary
down.
(Searle
Step
1:
I have to
to
Y, and in study
response for an
he has to
conversation).
Step that of
2:
assume his
that
Y is is
co-operating intended to
in be
the
conversation (Principles
and
therefore Co-operative
remark
relevant
Conversation).
Step
3:
A relevant
response further
must
be one of etc.
acceptance, (Theory of
counterproposal,
discussion,
This the
is
the
first is
step of a
that
needs
that
accepting rules
notion acts
of
speech
alone here
acceptance ordering of
pair,
or
theory it which
would in
terms
state
expressed
limits
response
can be made.
Step not
4:
But
his
literal response
utterance (inference
one of
these,
and so was
a relevant
steps
1 and 3).
This in great
step this
outlines chapter,
something namely
that the
will of
idea
namely utterance
relevance
and sequencing. to
Ui must
be relevant that
The sequencing
maxim states
when the
primary
-189-
act
is then
(the
exact
to
it
is a
not certain
so
speech of the
be of
rise
pragmatic second
response, a direct is
doesn't
appear
sequencing that of
interpretation making a
statement. response
sort there
is
Therefore, appropriate
be an to the
interpretation
as a response
To summarise:
i) ii)
1 is
2 must maxim,
be an appropriate
response
iii)
Its not
direct relevant it
either
that
it
is
sequencing response to
maxim, the
because
proposal. iv) There violate must the be an indirect sequencing interpretation that does not
maxim.
5: his
means primary
more
than
he
says.
literal
(inference
4).
This between
inference the
of this
the is
conflict reason
why an indirect
can be interpreted
as such.
6: of
studying to takes
for
takes
large going to a
a single a large
movies evening
single
background
factual
background far
rather
something the
form the
correct
namely necessity
utterance the
modal
auxiliary
used,
I want 1 will
be studying
-190-
Both the
of
the
above
utterances
less
friendly that
than can
one given is
probably
inference thus
be drawn that
do something else.
by necessity,
implying
he cannot
Step study
7: for
Therefore an exam in
cannot
both
go to from
the Step
movies 6).
and
(inference
Step or
8: on
condition is
on the the
acceptance to
of
ability
perform
content
condition
Step
9:
something
that
consequence proposal
consistently
accept
from
and 8).
Step reject
10:
Therefore, proposal
his
primary
is
probably
to
the
(inference
In
this
example, in the
the
act
occurs the
in
the case
speech was in
speech apply.
act
then
step
As we shall speech on to
chapter,
there
examine of
sentences
are
conventionally He identifies
performance of
directives.
indirect
ability
to
perform
A.
e. g.
Can
concerning you to
S's do A. H's
wish
or want
that
H will
do
A.
I want
doing
A.
e. g.
iv)
Sentences e. g. Would
H's not
desire making
to
do
A.
v)
reasons
e. g.
You
inanediately.
-191-
vi)
Sentences another.
embedding e. g. Might
one
of
these take
inside
I ask you to
Searle types
then (Searle
states op.
that cit.
certain p. 39).
facts
pertain
to
these
sentence
1.
in
question
do not
have
an imperative
force
meaning. for the this statement of the fact that such intent.
as support with
sentences e. g. (6) to it
can be linked
denial
any imperative
I'd do it or
like or
you to
for
me,
but
I am not
asking you to
you do
requesting you to
you do it
or ordering
telling
This easily
argument
seems to with
as it
could
just
as
e. g. hat?
This
could (7a)
have been
hat.
of course that the former is more polite.
The
only
difference
2.
The sentences
in
question force is
are
not
ambiguous
an
and a non-imperative one and it indirect indirect argue speech speech are is act act
a difficult these
of
inherently
ambiguous, ambiguous
as hints
may be
deliberately
hearer
Facts
1 and
2,
these
are
standardly
directives. there is a systematic acts in relation a way that such In this as "I between there have to I these is no
states
utterances relation
an utterance proposals.
study agree
an exam" Searle.
and rejecting
respect,
-192-
4.
The sentences
in
question
are
not,
in
the
ordinary
sense,
idioms.
5.
To say that
they
are
not
idioms
is
not
to
say they
are
not
idiomatic.
6. they
in
question
have requests.
literal
utterances
in
which
indirect
7. they
In
cases still
where
these
sentences
are
as
requests, with
have that
their literal
literal
meaning meaning.
uttered
and as having
8.
When
one
of
these of
is
with
the
primary
illocutionary point of
point a directive,
illocutionary
performed.
Searle been
the the
the
cases is
that that I
movies
categorised develop, to go
that to be
separate speech
time of
recognising
a variety
reasons.
then
attempts
to
furnish
in give
terms rise
of to
conditions generalisations: S
and preparatory
(or
other
directive) condition
by
a preparatory
concerning 2. or 3.
do A obtains. directive by either content directive but not by asking whether obtains. that whether the it
propositional
condition stating
sincerity obtains.
4. S can
by asking
make there
an
by
stating reasons or
that for
or
asking A, to do
whether except
doing etc.,
where
the
rea; >on is
H wants
wishes
-193-
A in to
which
case
he can only
ask whether
H wants,
wishes
etc.
do A.
himself is
states of
no way
explaining For that indirect which the is my with extends set of the example, the
what
circumstances content
obtains
treated to the
Without
giving
a directive,
I shall performed.
concerned Searle a
indirect analysis
speech to
producing
generalisations
similar
directives.
6.3
A New Theory
of
Indirect
Speech Acts
6.3.1
Introduction
should
first are
of
all
that
there
are
many
thrust
examine surface
in is
form acts
will of
because
pragmatic deemed
maxims to explain be
used
potential
types
of
acts acts
that that
arise arise
because because
of
authority. of conflicts
iii)
Indirect
considerations. iv) Indirect missing Speech cognitive acts that arise because of additional act. or
states
presupposed
by a speech
-194-
first uses
category toned
includes
cases e. g.
where
speaker
in
I suggest
Sacerdoti's in
work
second
and third
categories
many ways
Searle's (9)
the for
movies
tonight?
an exam. such "no" is as the one made requires and hence hints at a a
a proposal response
indirection down.
because occurs example to
the
why the
indirect
turned
arises state for them
act cognitive
of
a the
missing direct
or form
when
pleading;
when of
we
plead reason. of
some sense is
duty, In
but its
a good this
which to
hearer form:
unaware.
could
a surface
of
reason the of
why the
hearer the
speaker the
say?
he repeats
above
formula
a violation illustrates
The example
what
circumstances:
(Maltby the
1989) war.
which
depicts
the
fall
of are out
end of
troops
Vietnamese what
be airlifted are
obvious
speakers
pleading
you!
(The direct
form)
an aunt
New York.
(15) (16)
Another: Another:
I have They'll
gold kill
-195-
In they
this
it
is
self
that
everyone happens
wants is
to that
leave,
but
so what the
indirect should
speech do P.
reason
why the
hearer
6.3.2
Indirect
Speech
Acts
and Authority
One discussed is as in
type arises
of
has
already the
been hearer
P when it there
a position
of (see
a question
linguistic is in an form
act.
The question is
exceptional to
a statement
except
rising
intonation:
(17) Quirk in et
You've al.
question are
is
assertive e. g.
character (18a)
non-assertive
inadmissible,
eat? eat?
not when so much the They but they when is the hearer is
(18b)*You've
Declarative an authority
(Berry's types of
knower).
possibly indirect
assertive
in
function
questions.
It at all
is
quite
that direct
certain
speakers in
use
them way.
questions
a subtle
Whereas Is a
thus:
declarative
to
as
request
for
p. 195). foregone
"no" to
as a mean:
state
theory.
-196-
6.3.3.
Pragmatic
Maxims,
Politeness
and Indirect
Speech Acts
to in what each
just speech
of all how
maxims
(1975) given
postulated heading is
the of
idea
of
a set
of
pragmatic Principle'.
the
broad
'The
Cooperative
Principle
subdivided
categories
of
contribution
informative
not is
to
contribution
more
informative
contribution
one
that
is
true:
1. Do not 2. Do not
to
you
evidence. iii) iv) Relation: Manner: 1. 2. 3. 4. Bach and Harnish them added i) in their Be relevant. Be perspicuous; Avoid Avoid Be brief Be orderly. (1979), adopted Model the Gricean in maxims Chapter and included Three). They obscurity ambiguity. (avoid unnecessary prolixity). i. e. of expression.
Inferential useful
(described
the
is the
of
a communicative
exchange.
speaker's the contribution has the to attitude behaves vulgar etc. the exchange expressed. politely, is
ii)
Sincerity. sincere in
The that
speaker in
iii)
The not
speaker offensive,
speaking, abusive,
iv)
in
behaves that
for hearer
he ought something
direct not
done etc.
-197-
of
all.
This
is
used to
as
an has is gone a
what
before. when it
appears
discussed then
in an
Four. is
a question and it
position, to
expected,
decode
what
a question
Sincerity may or if An convention than way
as an answer.
come into play in that of indirect an answer answer speech is one to "Very of is acts a not are thank is "Not a sort so where certain being you? ", you", of good" is
the
response of given.
"How well
There
house
used
gives
indication
response
inappropriate. Quantity principle than has in may that it sometimes is for. terms of interact useful (1983) inference, in the the plan with to the give basic more to co-operative information explain speaker and obstacle. of view appear Manner inclusion it is Five. of of is is a this has has
been
asked in
the
hearer
importance and in
indirect be of only
indirect
maxim
that
criticised. one
the
Chapter the
direct whereas
obeying
maxim layer
indirect to be
speech overcome.
an extra
that
has
6.4
Politeness
and
Face
attempts example
explain
politeness. views of
Fraser
describes
alternative
politeness.
-198-
first
of
these has
is
the
norm of
view social
(Kasher norms
1986)
in
which of
explicit or
prescribe in
thinking
second which by
what is (1973)
pragmatic following
who derived
the
c)
However politeness discussed speaker's will extends maxims scale, scale these be
Make A feel
this is by system to
good
gives no This whose and detail into sets the mention approach of how has the level extensively between Leech's summarise: maxims. the scale, details of vague. the work he These of
be measured. (1983)
been
Leech
theory his
below, six of
measured
exactly
measurements
however
somewhat
approach Brown
is
the
view p. 59)
of
Brown
and
define
a model a
face
seen as to
to They
non-distraction. interest to
however to
minimize resort to
effects
certain
strategies
maintain cit.
(op. view
puts
forward with
the
which 1981).
associates
deference
& Nolan
Kasper
(1990)
points
out
that
there
is
no
satisfactory
-199-
of
I to of with
that
it
is
a combination norms imposed known These example noise favourably (1984) we would is
of by as
norms in when in a
from is
one
considered hand, of
other a bowl
upon
slurp in
noodles. society on
Smithies what
Western
call
following
to
say
on table
manners:
Slurping they is in
Such
for
whatever
reason, vulgar in
because it suck
considered tea to or
one's
to
the
cool
either
anything
norms
don't The of
have maxim
linguistic do a with an
leads
second is the in a
etc. with to
acceptable approach Gu
maxim cultures.
(1990)
maxims
Chinese:
i)
denigration
maxim - denigrate
oneself,
elevate
ii)
maxim - it
is
important
to
use
the
correct
address.
maxim
iii)
The
maxim less maxim which the is same according to Leech's in Family than in are
particularly is in very
naming
and aunts
the
they
the
according see
- second, identified
fourth, -
goh - fifth.
either
-200-
members chim is
or
in-laws:
the
teow
- uncle(the third
For
uncle be
known fourth
spouse
would
sar-chim. would be
aunt
be see-koh
and her
husband
The on the
of face is
is
based this is
Japanese a volitional
is
element. in
Although and the explain universal. explicit. Brown and In speaking interaction third formal, relatives abroad). members saying: daughter the (of have guests, loss of It of party. between its effect and
Brown all
Levinson and
seems viewed
therefore face
Chinese are
however, model.
into
Chinese Chinese),
(primarily, appears
between For a
example: family an be
and
customary before
"Father must
where seniority.
address fails to
each do
considered seen
her up
parents their
being In the of
absence manners.
would is
merely involved.
castigated
lack
example, the
a male of
discusses his
a former
with he In
presence
his of or not
face,
absence
whether for
discusses girlfriend,
former loss of
girlfriends
-201-
face
does
not
the
gate.
do so would not to
as a snub. would
However
do so in face
wife pub
presence departing
place friends. left him of
of
another
be a failure
to off to him make out
to
meet to find in
give
his the that the
to
at
guests.
work, His and in wife but on
forgot
with
furious
already
him
lose Such
until and
so.
Brown Chinese of a
threatening, of face
a loss is
third
wrong simple in
consider
rank
a loosely
B for A. In
Chinese
it
himself it
face.
takes
a third
always
However, Levinson threatening threatening wife society some of telling when the model
the of
model face.
definitely Many of
does the in
not
fit
with used
examples of
front
husband front
used
with
problem the
acts described
and by acts,
clearly Levinson
some of are
often that is
speech
totally in
face
Japanese in failed,
hence
such
asked.
The
-202-
does be
not
apply
in is
thesis a are:
will of of
presented but
some of act
speech states.
minimisation
and
presupposed
6.5
Strategies
For
Indirectness
Based On Cognitive
States
First their
of
all,
let's Leech of
simple describes
speech
acts
and in
responses. order
conflict
descending
severity: (strongest).
B do B from X, but doing B tries X, but not to do A. to do it anyway.
1. Actual
i) ii) 2.
Conflict
A makes A stops
B tries
Disobedience.
i) ii) 3. Will
i) does ii)
B to
do A, but doing
do A.
B from
B does A.
A communicates not do A.
to
B that
A wants
B to
do
A,
but
A communicates A.
to
B that
A wants
B not
to
do A,
but
B does 4. Will i)
Incompatibility A communicates to
communicates ii)
want
do A. to do A, but
A communicates to
A wants to
B not do A.
B communicates
A that
B wants
conflict maxims
is are
to
be
avoided of
where strategies
possible. to
Leech's just
an explanation
achieve
six
maxims
of
that form
he says the
explain
Politeness
speaker
to to
and maximize
Maxim,
in
which
the
speaker cost
minimizes to himself.
the
himself
and maximizes
the
-203-
iii)
The
Approbation dispraise
Maxim, of
in
which
the and
speaker maximize
attempts praise
to of
minimize another.
another
iv)
Maxim, himself
in
which
the
minimizes of himself.
the
v)
The
Agreement
Maxim, between
speaker and
minimizes maximises
himself
and another
between
and another. which and the speaker and (Leech minimizes maximizes op. cit.
Sympathy
Maxim,
between between
another
and another.
the of
maxims the
that
comprise principle
the
plus what
Cooperative
he calls
(Leech to
He then the
describes force
define
pragmatic with
an utterance. set of politeness (see section that are very maxims 6.4), is their
problem universality, of
example for
politeness
differ
given
However, cit.
Leech's they of
p. 171), to sets
theory essential
example, and
preparatory
conditions
when
applied
as one might most as: we're here isn't in having it? turn: opening people
between innocuous
then such
(19a) (19b) Considering maxim maxim, suspicion relative is being The assertives,
weather lovely
aren't
we?
Leech's
maxims for
tact
maxim and generosity The treated that his third with when action a
aren't the in
maxim if
circumstances comes up to
as people
can launch
be into
used a
with tirade
seems rather
-204-
to is always
a perfect only
stranger. in
maxim
the
because
conflict
agreement
on something. the P is speech not is act: Assert(P). This is perfectly making e. g. sure safe that
that
controversial. of the
will the
be so, weather.
appears
i. e.
1973). nice
to
A form isn't
as:
here
invite of
agreement. that
therefore possible
appears to make,
to
be one
form is
utterance to
likely
disagree
a is bel(S
sense that
what the
is
tag
speaker is also
P) but
inviting in
the this to
act
expressed not
question) cognitive
possible preferred
some that the with
only
response.
other common but quality, such is responses: not one as: absolutely could go firstly where certain. along with
hearer
poss(P) of
violating maxim
maxim
agreement
a response
Perhaps, hand
Yes. if
tone). does not the really quality believe maxim, that he P, could
other
without
(completely)
violating
respond: (22) Note however appears the Well, use of perhaps. the marker definitely rude: having I think that too not nice its the weather been hearer this year, haven't we? to signal believes an unfavoured that -P then response. the If
that abrupt,
hearer even
response
been
rude
might
be one such
(25a)
or
B: Oh,
so sure.
(25b)
B: Do you
really
think
so?
-205-
that to
P,
where of
one
is as
inviting it will is be
appears inviting
be the
agreement,
ensuring
form to
of
speech to
that
in
that
lead
as in stating
that
although Suggestions
certain. don't
are
they
invite conflict). in
agreement
the
hearer
involve the
questions question
appears
P e. g. his tag in leave with food, questions the rather doesn't don't he? appear form: he? in there doing are one so, one is to be used to make
But
rising
clumsy mightn't
tomorrow,
because However,
making
promise.
a promise, I suggest
oneself, speech
not
where really
the
speaker
promises again,
by a pragmatic
maxim - the
Questions simple part that of is
morality
involve
degree impose
of
work
by
the
hearer on
than the
and
very saying
oneself, arriving or
emphasis (e. g.
avoidance
answering
Japanese),
-206-
hence assertion. If
a question
appears
to
be more
"emotionally
loaded"
than
an
to
questions than
involves does
higher to of
degree assertives,
of
hearer
responding degree
involve us the
a greater hierarchy:
commitment
request
Indirection it likely conflict, with awkward, assertive reached, example, is worth that or
> question
goes the to
> assertive
gradient why out of is this (from left to be a right), so. It but is
a loss it as
that
that
as bad
refusing
controversial form of
readily Consider
(Standing an isn't
outside
in
the
rain
waiting Its
for raining
bus, hard
acquaintance it?
that
he
would Lets
like
a ride
home the
in
the
but it it
request. or
consider If it
direct refused,
accepted reasons:
refused.
is
is
cannot
Aa
lift
he to
is
going
in
a or
different is going
do some shopping
there
not
A boring,
or A has halitosis,
can be many
can't an
is
than not
won't want to
and be
under put
normal into a in
where to
they
they
won't
do something
a request.
of lift. off But lift he hinting B can and is or allows agree Ba with left way A's out if he does and that not is
strategy give Aa
A is not
perhaps certain
absolutely
whether
B was merely
-207-
other
hand turning
the
request
into
a question
is
less
A: Are still:
you going
home via
Stotfold?
worse A:
give
me a lift is worse
strategy the Aa
a question not
comply not
request. then he
does
want
one of B: I'm
sorry quality
I've
got
to
pick
up my son first
(breaking
(32) In feels to lead the B: first I'm
the
by lying)
prepared lying, in the to give you he it B. a lift. probably is Of going course
sorry, B is about
not into
case
uncomfortable to
B might but in
avoid
worsening
relations,
safest
it
allows This
both can be
a means by
by-passing that
a mechanism
cancellation:
A: B:
Its I'm
raining sorry
heavily I can't
tonight give
isn't
it? I have to go to
you a lift,
(36) B: That's
The implied raises certain pass not firstly, unlikely why: (37) the be the request
OK.
is effectively question For example a hint are the the cancelled of in why hints the standard The salt two by both are parties. used of next for the this only This in
interesting
case is
such
as:
reasons
hearer explains
the
salt?
seems OK, whereas (38) Will you pass rude. suggest that in a situation where the speaker the salt?
-208-
that
the then
hearer it is
is
unlikely
to to
say ask a
"No,
I won't
service because
that
hearer is far
I can't
Answering a request.
a question does it
better
why then
seem strange
(39)
as a form the
The
of form
salt
is
next
to
you.
answer might form. it is be If that that it is is so, to one then is it a
An obvious X? is
because then use: assumes the favour, allows the used implies carry hearer hearer i. e. form
need X? the
to
that
hearer X?
refuse where
more to
a strategy state: in the a out is -want salt possible a simple anti-social (hints teacher
in
be are
regarded fairly
used to pupil
common
exchanges:
(40)
Perhaps pedagogic awareness the
The window
reason strategy to the needs
is
open.
th: +. s is help of so pupils is that develop it is a used sense as a form of social of
why to
others).
When
we look
at
the
form:
it finely it
is
not tuned
so
much form
a of
so that
intrusive anti-social
request behaviour
might). on the
possible
the
this
strategy
as follows:
1. is
Speaker
states
that
some
state
of
affairs
P obtains
that
the
that
the
hearer
can
possibly
remedy.
-209-
2. Hearer
a) b)
can:
completely it the to recognise the assertion to of do as a hint. Q which for
fail
recognise
as a hint consequences
alleviates speaker. c) d) 2a. 2b recognise recognise agrees offers there may: apologise which
affairs
it it with to
but but
to to
do Q. do Q. sequence. accepts,
end of Speaker
exchange
(presumably)
has been
a misunderstanding.
2c.
for
not
being
able
to option of
Q and to "I
give "cancel"
reason. the to
speaker the
didn't
mean
you to the or
do Q". reason resort for not to to being strategy a strategy have been I can't " 2ci is or resort normally able to 2a. that able give
not
want and
reveal lie
do Q
hearer
he might "I'm
not
sorry,
strategy
In that a lie
accordance the in
I
with
this
the
"worst" the
that
can snub do Q.
hearer order
suggest avoids
has to to
between reason
the the
potential
conceal
why he cannot
reason level if is the why that
that to
hints Leech
is
that
it
would
happen
hearer by
want gives
to the
do Q (which hearer
requested of getting
speaker). having to
Furthermore lie.
a means
The the
analysis
suggests that
that
we cannot
treat
all
requests incomplete)
in
same way, of
I suggest
a simple be:
(though
possibly
taxonomy i)
requests
might
Request on P,
(To a person
is who )
an
authority
-210-
ii)
Request He is
speaker
wants P. the
to
know
P.
iii)
Request
Action.
speaker
hearer
to
do something. iv) Request the Transaction. wants above, that that P is the to it Used buy P. is the situation where believes the that speaker P may and in transactions, where
speaker
true.
hearer typically,
on P matters question.
something P is (there permitted is
a declarative
Case 2 arises
question
when the is
a tagged
to know knows
speaker whether
and a to speech
important
question
hearer the
possibility the such speaker as: P). Can once speaker P). 3 is the
whether typically me P?
hearer involves
indirect the
precondition when him the about Case conditions: (or that normally do P can hearer way out, the is out, is willing for a refuse be might
again
indirect if the
wants
know
permitted
here
are
two
that to
do P and
hearer put
argument is assumed
that
have
request to
then it then
asked. not
however to do,
the calls
he does
not
speaker that
he
has
a pathway (see
enables schema
claim
he was merely
a comment
increased of is using
familiarity questions
between or even
hearer,
the
increases, presented.
perfectly give
within a lift
I always case it
home when he requests use the a in lift this if direct home, case this it form. but is same
him to
hand,
my friend
I can't that
commitments, be used.
a question
would
However
-211-
wanted
to
borrow
money,
then
this to
would
take
our for
he would not
be likely
he would money,
a him the
and if
friendship, ground,
hence
hint to the
same time
request of
anyway,
both honour
parties or face
equilibrium,
maintaining
Case sales: is is sell. when not it in that able
intact.
exclusively form is: to sell be for Have P if known transactions you got P? The it, involving assumption that P he to form is
4 is the
used
almost
indirect will
want
he has is to May I
also
What is that
may not
acceptable has P.
have
P.
impolite.
To view a the
summarise
the
indirect in to
for
requests:
we
may :
a request of
achieve know
of
the
However, want to
tell the
us that hint
not
This
by using type of in
the the
request way of
plans
or
also speech
explains acts,
prehence
requests the
as something
compatible (1983)
assertion act
pre-sequences
challenge
speech
The requests:
other is
with form
the decoded
strategies as
surrounding
a request?
Brown assertion
(op. violates
cit. the
p.
213)
are
incorrect
in It
their does
maxim of
relevance.
-212-
for
if
it
did,
it
would
be impossible
to
from and
irrelevant that
obeyed. will
as relevant spent
the
context. requests and why they some types are other that
examining it is
worth
examining certain for other example hearer appears The get the
acts.
Searle
thought
concerning e. g., direct directive something, wants speaker believe oneself conveyed you used to to the I
that
the act
you to
do P. of
This the is
particular affect. to
it
and in hearer
cases,
conveys to the
the
do P. the
This
case
where
purpose
I want of
you to
appears explicitly
expressing state I want is order another because hearer degree the being for the of to of
to act. is
which
a suggestion in
one form to do P
speaker
speaker not
that hearer
he wants with
might
what
theory (e. g.
terminology) should as it
speaker request
express
be a
a command). is
Hence it for in
impolite. form of
There the
a tendency state or
hearer most
cognitive
imposing
(speech
act)form,
i. e.
command. indirect the form mentioned reasons for for by Searle doing is that of e. g. a
about Is it
hearer's
something,
really the
necessary
reasons
he would
the
do P. something include
asking
someone not
Must
you to
take
out
the
garbage?
-213-
suggest
that
the
form
is
used that to do
is the so.
that
is will
this
case relating
an
form be
barely there
is
not
very
polite, speaker
assumption
between
hearer
hearer
normally
remain acts
with to
this the
relate of
levels acts?
politeness,
particular
6.6
Indirect
Speech Acts
and Pragmatic
Maxims
the
two and
most the
pragmatic maxim.
are
the
paramount going to
inviolable to
assume
there speaker If we
some
intent). to
consider
example
used
a proposal:
I have this
to
study appears If
for to
we take
sequencing
maxim in
we will in
terms
pairing acts.
between It also
speech the
acts
secondary
speech
primary-secondary To change is
sequence topic
controlling to
answer
and is
is
sequencing
maxims
sincerity
that carry
do things Clearly it
such is
make promises, to It
maxim to of requires
example, commitment
making
a request,
some form
-214-
If
the
hearer
does
not
want
to
service the
the
request, maxim,
has to
say so,
or violate
sincerity
undesirable. maxim of quantity not principle: each maxim model others to too ensures much, that wants that not too the little. speaker If with provides we stand each by
enough the by
information,
co-operative inferring
people
quantity computer as a
has that of
produced inferring to
result
speaker's them to
providing example
(44)
Traveller: Rochester?
the
time
of
the
next
train
to
At
18.30
from response
platform is
5. it is not a strict
clerk's
answer
does
the
train
...?
from
platform because
not the
indirect surface
form, argue
violates than
quantity question
maxim strictly
Here the
a conflict maxim.
up between the
and not
obeying as
quantity as violating
To violate relevance
quantity
serious
say the
maxim or the
maxim. It operative almost University purchase underground ticket, a is difficult principle daily is and within to know where For buy a to draw the line with into However so I use the co-
distance However,
rail
would a place:
themselves following
composite
a travel
So the
-215-
P: Clerk: P: Clerk:
A return
to
Kings to
Cross
please. underground?
use the
co-operative
generalisations.
The asserting to which quantity something you know maxim that the can you be violated know to be in true, occur involves other or ways: asking using by either
answer.
These
when
indirect that is
a hint hearer,
sometimes e. g.
asserting
(54)
Its
raining
hard
isn't
it
lift?
). a is
The conventional/standardized question already I violated (55) sometimes known. suggest is Its that the fact means
of making answer
by asking question
the
that
the the
has
been
coincidental; raining
consider heavily
tonight.
quantity
short
of money at of the
the
moment. maxim, the violation choice. not to violated, be thought that but the
quantity that
probably
suggests there is is
occurs
but
because
no other should
one that
generally asks
speE.ker tell
something the to
not to
want
the that
hearer is
want
hearer
faced the
prospect
refusing Alternatively,
wants
him to of these
neither
alternatives
of the
the
results
in
greater It is
speaker
misunderstood. a warning to
form, maxim It
manner
violated, with
may also
associated The
-216-
of
politeness.
Leech
(1983)
has attempted (op. likely cit. to pragmatic some that If it virtue Chinese becomes then way.
terms
to 4)
further. approach of
p. result
maxims
that is
theory in
to
defined maxims
define
possibly
The other their attempt threatening out,
to
view
is to what
politeness
represent Brown and they in
of
maxims, set of to
is
attempted in and
(1986)
Japanese
example,
element match
concept and
examples the
speech that
attempts to keep
to to
force
reveal
they
themselves.
maxim are to
(used two
is
the things
maxim that
of the
aspects
not
Secondly, position
speaker he
should has to
avoid reveal
hearer not
he ought do.
to,
or to morality
have to
do something play
he does not
when considering
strategy A difficult
remaining particularly
how
can speech
we acts?
measure Leech
) suggests
a set
Distance
Scale.
scale with
is
of
the
cost
or benefit the
to
the
For
example involves
utterance to the
p. 107) to
Peel
potatoes On the
a cost
do some work).
other
hand an utterance
-217-
as
Have Given
another in their
has as
an
obvious
to is
the a is
to
the
such Have
polite. stands.
points to
that to
somewhere benefit to
there is
a change
a general
increase
politeness.
is Sit
concerned down!
with
gives
Would hearer,
The
more polite
scale has
general)
the
utterance
in terms to
many the
arrive
utterance. scale hearer, degree of is a measure or vice of versa. the authority The that between for age social the the etc. to some extent as because significance. I want to are in a of that the
the
overall
respectfulness
upon
such I
have but -
measure other In
order
politeness, indirectness
that upon
one section.
particular
speech
shall
expand
6.7
A Schematic
Model
of
the
Speech Act
"Request"
the
thesis, idea
model states
of that
necessary i) ii)
underlying the to to
intent
behind to
what order
speaker
needs
speech possible
iii)
the
i)
says
that
the
communicates
-218-
etc.
to
the
hearer. to the
For
example, that
when he
P, the hearer
speaker to do
hearer
shared to
set
of
facts
an of
when might
making to
believes
be able
do P. that the speaker responses the not believe knows about to the the hearer act. it in For is the the
are to
things the
hearer's
speech
making the
speaker him.
recognize in P.
a response
which
effectively
questions
belief
this
in
Chapter
Three
in
the
form state
outline
Chapter could
to to I
the Then
hearer in
Chapter
outlined states
particular
communicated
cognitive
forms.
In account a set
order of of be
to
include
indirect it which is
speech
acts, to how
with the
an
necessary determine
schema act A
speech community.
used to state in
expression appropriate
I shall
now examine
schematic
request.
REQUEST
In strictly, ask.
this
description of the
of
request
I shall
be somewhat belong to
liberal; tell or
some
conditions
may arguably
Firstly,
I will
use the
schema outlined
in
Chapter
Three:
Action: Cognitive
SPEAK(S States:
H want(S 1)
do(H
know(S
2)
-want(S
bel(H
O(do(H
P))))
3) bel (S poss (do (H P)) ) Presumed Effect: know(H want(S do(H P)))
-219-
This the to
us to
what do P).
is
being Secondly
before do P, it
the also
do
P. the
to that
Finally, may In
fact have
speaker
hearer
do P,
we need the
plan
that
deliver language to
schematic from
convey
something the passing the (such requesting something. the hearer Within relationship measure assumption request small. assistant apology the is request time), us hearer as
for do
information something
that that
forms,
something. about there and to of in a the is authority also hearer. service face, shop then to some The the however and a the small service exists. for pre-request a morality we know is the
schema,
information hearer,
between of social is then For is in that the example unable order. then the are is with plan to
hearer if
a loss
we ask supply us if
we want, is unwilling
incompatibility preconditions request, may even something us the the be that following:
ensures
making
There to do
requesting or illegally).
hearer This
(morally want
gives
(S know(P) know(H
) P)
Precondition:
--220-
ii)
want (S do (H P) ) poss(do(H
will (do(H
Preconditions:
P))
P))
iii)
P=a
(do(H
transfer
of ownership
of an object
Preconditions:
(do(H P))
P))
has (H P)
also the
includes
acts
that problem in
could exists
be
immoral of
or
illegal, the
in hearer
which is
whether
question.
If the
we take
the
first is standard
case, that
that the
of
a request
for
then speaker
precondition the
please?
time
please?
is the attempting hearer requested, to may not for of the these check be able the to pregive of is can may
reasons forms
first that
modal
permission, ability
a double )
questioning
permission.
I have in which
already the
given
an outline the
for do
the
second
speaker of the to
requests hearer's do P.
do P judge
to
on factors
society), cost,
whereas a social a
passing nicety. )
and is to use
judge that I
hinting a has
before.
that
-221-
threshhold by use of
as to
whether but
they the
hinting
strategy
or
request
a question, to
apply using Speaker
Cost
seems to
Hearer
when
- Social
deciding
a request i)
a question. states
The a state
affairs
the
(e. g.
I'm
getting
very
wet
Speaker
states
that
he would be home in
like bed
to with
(e. g. ) to ask at
I really
need to
cold.
question in
this
point the
is
strategy normally
a situation the is
where
hearer
request? next to
reach
a hint, to
it.
the speaker this is to which
do P and not
hearer
be willing something
observe might be
behaviour,
taken
offensive. is why is the the resort where is to direct hearer to the the form will not used, observe rather is not
Another after social than great, acceptable all, norms, a direct then, to
question that is it
that to
distance it is
cost
a request
an acceptable
indirect
exists.
a problem uses
with
the of
bald
imperative
(i. e. that
pass a
address is
used because it
address. "you" is
way
"vous" is
indicate
French,
pure
speculation). loaded in
ways that
makes their
form:
Can
you
do
P?
may
be
contextually
1975), three
-222-
restaurant: (61) Can you speak for Japanese? food) (To Hearer who shows a marked
preference
Japanese
form
of
request
is
where hearer. of
the
wants of
to
have
possessed
by the type
heavily In
transaction is willing
that to
place. to the
the
hearer
sell
speaker,
form:
On the
other
hand,
if then
the the
wants of to and be
hearer, where do P.
case to
the If near
sufficiently
then
a hint
used, e. g (62) cutting saw? ) The trees down the at the back to of my garden are overhanging your and wood
light
my rockery.
(May I borrow
Requests
Other -
Forms
of
Indirection
Other These i)
forms take
of
in
connection
with
requests.
seem to
Speaker you to
of
request.
e. g.
want
ii)
a precondition stop of
of
the then
you don't
where
speaker
states
doesn't
do P, then
obtain) states this of the is communicative same as the the act directly. effect, is: bel(S (For but a in
the
desired
desired
effect is:
bel(H P) ).
whereas
communicated
are the is
various strict
reasons definition it
why these of
forms acts
be first
used. of of
speech
cases
indirect,
come across
as a very
form
-223-
The
third
case
in
akin is
to such
the an of
effect
lesser
success,
however
suggest
(63) has
Leave
the
room
structure that you leave the room that the reason is desired that effect. why in many many Hence
is
in
misguided.
I suggest
speech cases
an assertive, (65) becomes (66) or in the (67) cheese. By directly intention (68) (69) Both lacking intense, utterance The precondition suggest according request it (70)
as an
The moon is
made of
green
cheese,
that
the
moon is
made of
green
cheese.
you to
believe
that
the
moon is
made
of
green
the
desired in
effect the
of
the
speech
act,
the
be clearer that
directive room,
case:
the room.
you to are
of
forms
much to
the case
are
seems making
arises
gives itself.
form type
that
reasons
which possible
precondition to say:
being
used.
you don't
form indirection of the of
do P then
nobody
else
In
will.
this case the to idea the it a say
indirect the
behind
draw
attention
consequences is also
hearer to
not
possible (the
emphasise that
precondition has to
does
hearer
do P), e. g.
(71)
I don't could
want
you to
think do P.
that
you have
to
do
it
but,
you possibly
-224-
here
the
feels to
acts know
to
ask the
hearer
to
do
P,
and does
Other
any pressure.
forms of indirection: I fact just that saw a UFO. he accepts him. speech that the
speech I
the is of
believing every be
found
The particularly
indirection to
appears
speaker
emphasise
precondition.
are
also to
cases the
where
what I gave it
is an
is
known
hearer. where
1989) reason
was not
why the
was pleading
6.8
Summary
this
section, acts.
I have The
attempted final
to
deal
with of
the a
problem speech in of
of act the
plan
which to
wants
their speaker or
wants. belief
assertive,
There
express
the that
response with
knows that
believe
that
is
what
hopes
will
speech of the
plans, most
speaker form
deliver by
appropriate imposed
surface
of
considerations
maintaining
authority
-225-
speaker
social to
distance recognise
speaker
the
as verb
speech
a whole as it
as
of
the its
describes
considered produced
generation
not analysis
only
the
distinction level)
theories analysis,
appropriate also a of
discourse act is to
believe of linguistic
some
politeness.
-226-
References
Abbeduto
L.
and
Rosenberg
Children's Other
Knowledge Cognitive
of
the J.
Verbs.
12, pp. 621-641. R. A. to Mass. Recognizing In intentions Brady Models M. of from and natural Berwick language R. C. (eds. Cambridge, ) and Harnish and R. M. (1988). Communication. Linguistics: MIT An Press.
Demers
Language
Discourse.
MA.
Allen
J. F. (1987). Cummings.
Language
Understanding.
Benjamin-
Anderson
A. R. (1958) Logic.
.A Mind
of
Deontic
Logic
to
Alethic
Modal
Appelt
D. E. (1985). University
Cambridge.
Astington
Children's Lang.
Production
of
Commissive
Speech
Astington
Austin
do things
Bach
K.
and Speech
Harnish Acts.
Communication
and
Berry
Introduction Batsford.
to
Systemic London.
Linguistics
I:
Structure
Berry
Teacher Toronto
an Unanalysed 1982.
The J. Jef
Concept?
Ninth
Systemic
Bock
Hornsby
of
Directives:
Verscheuren.
pp. 633-635.
Boyd
J.
and
Thorne of
Journal
of
Modal
Verbs.
-227-
Brown
P.
S. (1979). In Scherer
Social K.
Structure, H.
Groups
and
and Giles
Speech.
Cambridge
University
Brown
P.
S. C. (1987). Cambridge
Politeness: University
in
Usage. Analysing
M. and
Burton
D. (1981).
Montgomery Routledge
Spoken Discourse.
(eds. ) Paul. Studies London. of in
In Coulthard
Discourse
M. and
Analysis.
Kegan
Carrell
Understanding Adult
Indirect J.
Comprehension.
Chisholm
Contrary-to-Duty
Imperatives
and
Deontic
Coates
J. (1988). Children
Aged
Twelve.
Cohen P. R.
Speech Acts
and Rationality.
pp. 49-60. Computer 116. 1978. Systems. Volume II. Understanding University
Cullingford of
R. E. (1978). Newspaper of
Yale
Database
Dore
J. (1977)
Illocutionary
Comprehension NJ.
What Computers
Production.
Erlbaum
Can't
Do.
Harper
and
Row.
Feys
R. (1937).
Les
Logiques
Nouvelles
des Vol.
Modalities. 40,1937,
Revue
de Philosophie. Hilpinen
In and
R. (1971) .
Hilpinen R. Readings. on
Deontic
(ed. )
Deontic
Systematic
Reidel.
Perspectives 14,1990,
Politeness.
pp. 219-236.
Fraser
B.
W. (1981). Form.
of of
Deference the
with
International
-228-
Sociology
Gazdar G. (1981). B. L. and
of
Language, 27,1981,
Act I. A. Cambridge Assignment. (eds. )
pp. 93-109.
In Joshi A. K., of Webber Discourse
Speech Sag
Elements Press. of
University
D. (1982).
Relevance. Press.
Academic
(1972). Order.
Microstudies
Harmondsworth. get people In to Cole do things P. and with Morgan Press. Cole 3: P. words: J. L. the Syntax
Green
G. (1975).
question. 3: Speech
Acts.
Academic In Vol.
H. P. (1975)
. J. L. (eds.
and
Syntax
Speech
Press.
New York. and Objectives: IJCAI J. Tokyo. Issues 1979, Transition Lang. 2,513-527. in Natural
Constative Child
Gu
Y. (1990).
Politeness
Phenomena
in
Modern
Chinese.
J.
of
14,1990, An
. London.
Modern
Guide
to
Synonyms Darmstadt.
and
Related
Darmstadter
Logic: Dordrecht.
Bltter.
Introductory
Hilpinen
R. (1971). Readings.
Deontic Reidel.
and
Systematic
Hirst
W.
Acquisition J. Child
of Lang.
Epistemic
and
Deontic
Holdcroft Holdcroft
D.
(1978).
and Deeds.
Clarendon Relevance
D. (1986a). Pragmatic
Holdcroft
D. (1986b). Pragmatic
Relevance
II.
Lectures,
Holdcroft
D. (1986c). Pragmatic
Relevance
III.
Lectures,
Holdcroft
D. (1986d). Pragmatic
Relevance
IV.
Lectures,
-229-
Holdcroft
on Conversation. on Conversation.
In
Verscheuren John
J.
Holdcroft
D.
Speech (ed. )
Philosophy
Mazeland
and
Discourse of
Units
Everyday
Conversation.
Journal
Pragmatics
9,1985,
Hughes G. Lo Ide S. (1986). and ic.
pp. 595-619:
Cresswell Methuen. Discernment J. of M. J. (1968). London. in Japanese: A Neglected 10,1986, pp. 257-279. Aspect of Introduction to Modal
Politeness.
Pragmatics,
Kasher
A. (1986)
. and Sonne H.
Politeness
and Rationality:
In
Johansen
J. D. Odense
and Linguistics.
Press. Linguistic J.
Current
Research
Pragmatics,
a
pp. 193-218.
Plan Recognition. July Belief 1985. Introspection. Tech
Towards 162. .A
University Computational
Rochester, Theory of
Proc.
Labov W.
IJCAI,
and
Fanshel as Logic
and Ninth
Q's.
In
Corium
C.
et
al. of
from Linguistic
The
Regional
Meeting
Society.
Le Bonniec G. (1974). Paris: Le Mouton. Raisonnement modal: etude
genetique.
Leech Leech
G.
Principles Meaning
of
Pragmatics. the
Longmans. Verb.
London. Longmans.
and
English
Levinson
S.
C. (1983).
Pragmatics.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Cambridge.
Lewis C. I. and York. Litman D. (1985). Integrated University of Plan Recognition for NY. and Discourse Analysis: Dialogues. An Langford C. H. (1932). Symbolic Logic. Dover. New
Approach Rochester,
-230-
Locke
J. (1691) Dover.
An
Essay
Concerning
Human
Understanding
New York.
Lyons
J. (1977). Cambridge.
Semantics
2.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Maltby
McCawley
R. and Boublil
J. D. (1981). Wanted Blackwell. to
A. (1989).
Everything Know about Oxford.
Miss
Saigon
that
- Libretto.
Linguists have Ashamed to Always Ask.
Logic
but
were
Minsky
.A
Framework
for
Representing of Computer
Knowledge. Vision.
In
McGraw-
Polanyi
Formal of
Model
of
the
Structure
of pp. 601-
Journal
Prgamatics
12,1988.
Pomerantz
Notes
on
the J.
Co(ed. )
Schenkein
of
Conversational
Quirk
R.
and English.
S. (1973). Harlow. of
Reeder
K. (1980) Child
Emergence
Illocutionary
Skills.
J.
7, pp. 13-28. Getting Cambridge, Computers Mass. Intelligence. McGraw-Hill. New to Talk Like You and Me.
Reichman
Rich
E. (1991). York.
Artificial
Sacerdoti
E. D. Elsevier,
(1977).
Structure
for
Plans
and
Behaviour.
New York. E. A. for and the Jefferson Organization 50,4 G. (1974). of A Simplest in
Sacks
Turn-Taking
Sadock
J. M.
(1974).
a Linguistic
Academic
New York.
Schank
R. C. (1975). Holland.
Conceptual Amsterdam.
Information
Processing.
North-
Schank
R. C.
and Abelson
R. P. (1977). Lawrence
Scripts, Erlbaum.
Plans,
Goals
and New
Understanding. Jersey.
Schegloff E. A. (1972).
Hillsdale,
Sequencing
in
Conversational
Openings.
-231-
In
Gumperz
J. J.
and Holt,
Hymes Rinehart
in
Winston.
Indirection:
Conversation.
of
Pragmatics Schegloff E. A., Preference Repair Schegloff E. A. Turner Penguin Schiffrin D. (1985) Handbook Dialogue. Schiffrin D. (1987). Press. Schmidt in and
Convesation. Sacks
Opening
R. (ed. )
Harmondsworth. Everyday of Discourse Argument. Analysis, Academic Press. In vol T. 3. London. Cambridge University Van Dijk (ed. ) and
Discourse
Markers.
Cambridge. N. S. Problem: Intelligence. pp. 45-33. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. and Goodson J. L. (1978). of The Plan and
An Intersection Artificial
Psychology Intelligence
Searle
J. R. (1969). Cambridge.
Searle
J. R. (1979). University
and
Meaning.
Cambridge
Searle
In Issues Erlbaum
Ellis in
D. G. Language
and and
W. A.
(eds.
Searle
J. R.
and
D. (1985).
Illocutionary Cambridge.
Cambridge
Sidner
Plan in pp-1-10The
Parsing
for
Intended
Response Intelligence
Discourse.
Computational
Sinclair
J. M. (1976). Form of
Significance Encounters.
of
the
Requests
Diploma
Dissertation.
Sinclair J. M. and
University
Coulthard the
Cambridge.
Towards by Teachers an Analysis and Pupils. of
Discourse: Oxford
University
-232-
Smith
C. J. (1970). Detroit.
Synonyms
Discriminated
Gale
Research
Co.
Smith
P. W. H. Theory
and
D. Acts
(1990). In
Towards
Computational J. (ed. )
Verscheuren
Pragmatics
John
Benjamins.
Smithies
M. (1984). Singapore.
How Not
To Lose Face.
Federal
Publications.
Sperber
D. in
D. (1982)
Mutual In
Knowledge Smith
and
Relevance
Comprehension. Press.
N. V.
(ed. ) Mutual
Knowledge.
Sperber D. and
Academic
London.
Relevance: Communication and
Wilson
D. (1986).
Blackwell. . Science
Pre-announcement Working of
School
University
Irvine.
Verscheuren
J. (1983). Pragmatics
On
Boguslawski
on
Promise.
J.
of
1983,7, . Modal
G. H. (1951) .
Deontic Thinking.
English
A. R. (1975)
Blackwell.
Speech Press. Act Sydney.
Wierzbicka
A. (1987). Dictionary.
Academic
Wilensky
Stories. 1978.
Research
Winograd
T.
and
Flores Ablex.
Computers
and
Cognition.
-233-
Appendix
in
the
appendix to in
at
be the be
Four is
upon with
in
speech
pairs It
and starts
rudimantary
dialogue
of
the of
The
along
grammar using
a context commonly
(Chomsky specify
grammar, programming
Backus-Naur
computer
languages.
Sample
Dialogue
[1]
A:
Hello
there, - Report:
rang
but reason
you for
were not
out.
[Initiationl earlier]
Possibly
ringing
B:
Oh,
[Unexpected [Responsel]
content] in
I must
mum's. [12]
a good hour
[3]
A:
propositional [R2]
content]
well
[re-orientation]
I went
[4]
B: How uz things,
alright?
[13]
[5]
A:
[R3]
I'm
ringing
up about [14+]
tomorrow
actually
[I4]
and I'll
tomorrow
morning.
[6]
B:
Itchee
V's Not -
[Meta-speech
act
- clarification]
[7]
A:
Insteada
V's
[Meta-speech
act
- clarify]
[8]
B: Alright.
[R4 - accept
commissive]
-234-
[9] of
A:
Coz there's
[14++ it'll
- additional]
So
[Marker for
supplementary do it.
be an opportunity
me to
[I4+++]
[10]
B:
Yes
[R4+]
V's
alright
is
she?
[I5]
[11]
A:
Yes she's
fine
I popped
down last
night
[R5]
[12]
B: Oh that's
good.
She's
alright.
[IR5
summary]
[13]
A:
For [16]
awhile
-M
came with
me,
so...
[Repair]
How's
anyway?
[14]
B:
Yes,
he
went
for
his
X-Rays
on Friday.
[R6]
[15]
A:
Yes
[Acknowledge
- marker
for
R6+]
[16] doctor's
B:
And
we're
for sick
the
results, note.
now he has
to
go to
the
on Monday
[R6+/17]
[17]
A: Mm? [R7]
[18] gets
B: on
So [Supplementary [17+]
information
marker]
we'll
see
how
he
[19]
A: And is
he any better?
[18]
[20]
B: Yes his
back
the
last
two days.
[R8]
[21]
A:
Oh that's
good
[IR8
- expressive]
The pain's
gone?
[19]
[22]
B:
Yes
[R9]
[23]
A: Yes
[Self
anything
will
show
up on the
X-rays,
[24] him.
B: [R10]
No we'll
just
have
to
wait
and
see
But
it's
better
with
-235-
[25]
A: Muscles
I think
really.
[Ill]
[26]
B: Could
[R11]
A Structure
for
Discourse
The Form
notation to
used
in
this
section
is
based
upon BNF is
(BNF) used
represent
representing the
a Chomsky type
structure first
discourse. At the
However top of
as simple structure
level a set
transaction
Ep
consists
En)
exchanges:
where
there
be with heart
at
least in
one the
exchange. conversation.
pairing. introduce
The the
<topic-marker><exchange> Then <exchange> a response body itself with consists an optional of an initiation body followed by
comment body.
<exchange>
<initiation-body><response-body>(<commentbody>)
Initiation set of
body elaborations
consists with
of
an initiation
followed terminator.
by an
optional
an optional
<initiation-body>
<initiation>
(<terminator>)
(<elaboration>)*
itself :
is
simply
a primary
speech
act
(defined
in
speech
section structure:
may be connected
marker, :: = the
act
The
initiation
speaker
he has finished
-236-
a response
with
or without be followed
a preceding
response
by an initiation
<response-body>
:. _ <meta-section><response-body> <response-markers><response> I
<response-markers><response><initiationbody>
<response><initiation-body>
The
meta-section
is
what
is
known
as an insertion
sequence
and
consists
of
acts.
The meta
section
is
then
followed
by a normal
body.
<meta-section>
<meta-initiation>
:. _ <meta-initiation><meta-response>
:. _- primary speech act
:: = secondary consists of
speech
a secondary
speech of
speaking the
discourse
and secondary
be typed sensistive
can only
by a type markers
context are
as follows:
wayl... of recognized one example. speech of act the exchange speech to act. finish ways of introducing
which
way is
<comment-body> The with comment body a comment <connective> A connective competely serves absent.
which
normally ...
an expressive
:: = andibut to attach
one sequence
to
another,
it
may
be
<supplementary
The only supplementary so, but there
marker>
marker may be
:. = Sol ...
that others. I have been able to find is the
marker
<response-markers>
:. _ <orientation-marker>
I I
<information-management-marker> <orientation-marker><information-managementmarker>
-237-
<orientation-marker>
:: = ohi... :. = wellt...
<information-management-marker>
structure of
is
meant
to
be an outline, with
it
is
not to
meant the
as exhaustive act
form
particularly
respect
various
The initiation A: B: Initiation always of
non-speech
simplest and How uz Yes fine. sections the speaker
markers.
of exchange occurs when there is just an
may be marks
although want to
but
not
marker
supplementary A: Coz
material: there's it'll no bag be material] meeting. an opportunity [Initiation]. for me So to [Marker] do it. I
thought
[Supplementary
Meta usually
occcur
immediately that
after needs
the
initiation
part
and
something ringing
tomorrow
morning. for
[Request
clarification
- Meta-speech
V's.
[Meta-speech
act
Clarify] -
[Response] orientation and what Schiffrin an unexpected the response as a (1987) calls
often
indicate that
indicate This
may serve
means
decoding
indirect A:
B:
as responses. but
I in must
you earlier
you were
have hour
out.
at
[Initiation]
D's mum's. to [Response] two.
been and
a good
a half
[Initiation].
A:
Oh
[Orientation] then.
well
[Information
management]
went
shopping