You are on page 1of 245

Speech Act

Theory,

Discourse

Structure

and Indirect

Speech Acts

Peter

Wilfred

Hesling

Smith

Submitted

in

Accordance

with Doctor

the Requirements of Philosophy of Leeds Philosophy 1991

for

the

Degree

of

The University Department of September

The Candidate that the work submitted confirms has been given where that appropriate credit made to the work of others.

own work and has been reference

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

Searle's The Formal

Theory Theory Speech of

Indirect A Critique Sadock's The

Linguistic

Inferential

Speech Theory Acts

Some Criticisms Computational

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

Computational Other Artificial

Intelligence

Approaches

Discourse 2.5 Issues in

Structure Discourse Analysis

56 60

3.

The Deconstruction

of

Speech Act

Verbs

69

3.1 3.2 3.3

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

97 98 100 100 102 104 105 106

Declarative Evidence
Child

Thesis

Language

107

3.8 3.9 3.10

What is Formal

the

Cognitive

State

Hypothesis?

110 117 119

Speech Acts

and Expressives

Conclusions

4.

Speech Acts

and Discourse

Structure

120

4.1
4.2

Introduction
Cognitive States and Context

120
125

4.3 4.4 4.5

Speech Act Discourse The Thesis

Schemas and Logical Pairs and Cognitive

Schemas States

129 146 152

Restated

5.

From Speech Act

to

Utterance

156

5.1
5.2

Introduction
The Four Basic Sentence Types

156
159

5.3 5.4

Speech Acts Modal Will Can May


Shall

and Sentential

Structure States

162 166 166 170 170


172

Auxiliaries

and Cognitive

Should, 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8

Ought

and Must Use of Markers Modal Auxiliaries

173 173 177 180

The Logical Speech Acts

and Pragmatic and Discourse for

On a Taxonomy

Speech Acts Model of Utterance

Summary and Formal


Generation

181

6.

Indirect

Speech Acts

185

6.1 6.2 6.3

Introduction Searle's Theory of of Indirect Speech Acts Speech Acts

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

A New Theory 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3

Indirect

Introduction Indirect Pragmatic

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

Figure Figure Figure Figure

1.1 1.2 1.3 4.1

The Semantic The Semantic The Semantic The Basic

Tableau Tableau Tableau

for for for

Assertives Commissives Directives for Action

13 14 15 126

Conversation

Table

4.1

The Structural
ASSERT/STATE(P)

Relationships

of
137

Table

4.2

The Structural SUGGEST(P)

Relationships

for 140

Table

4.3

The Structural
FORBID(P)

Relationships

for
140

Table

4.4

The State

Structural bel(S pP)

Relationships

of

the 144

Table

4.5

Possible want(S

Hearer do(H P))

Responses

to 144

Acknowledgements

I realising be put Language act

started

work it

on my Ph. D. would take out

thesis

in

October

1985, would of of

little have to

how long into it.

or how much effort some vague moved into

I started and only

with

notions the area

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

The first University.

was a move proved

Polytechnic

immediately my thoughts so far often from very ideas. Doncaster

beneficial, and Leeds valuable However, station The Christopher, joyous thesis. his to first full first there

as I was allowed were no real Indeed allowed not

much more time with train to being

develop

problems the

located were

University. as they

journeys think about

me time if

certain wait at

I will again. second this

be sorry

I don't

have to

change took a

in place major

my life in

was

the 1988, the

birth and

of

my

son a the

December to

although of

event,

posed

threat

completion night

Christopher year of life

never

slept

through frequently found

one single left it

during exhausted at a

and this thesis.

me too

do anything to time With work job,

on the at it

I also the difficult parts guiding act of

almost

impossible and with

home during was often to various for of for

evenings to the

and weekends get much done.

respect

thesis,

I must some of also

of the

course more to in

thank

David

Holdcroft apsects Ide

me through theory. within

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

examples. Department at some stage Harry talking Marshall at on

My thanks Leeds University of

various with

members of

Philosophy

whom I have

had discussions Timothy I spent

some aspect and Peter Peter Attack. I University,

my thesis. I must about the

I mention: admit Duble that

Potts, more time or

Lewis to

Millican.

Millican

Muzio

Gambit

the

acknowledge who also

with provided

thanks

the

financial a light

support timetable

of load

City in my

me with

second support I patience and

year of

there. Leeds like

I also Polytechnic to thank

grudgingly in the

acknowledge early Sim for fact rest stages her that of of

the the

financial thesis. and

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

Finally, to Only whom that I I

I must owe an consider

immense it

an honour

a scholar

and

a gentleman.

-1-

1.

Speech

Act

Theory

1.1

Introduction

The exactly as that been in

main a speech within use

direction act the is or

of

this

thesis be. of since in

will Speech

be to Act to

explore

what

should

Theory explain act and

originated the theory ways has

a theory we can used

Philosophy but context This that the is

Language then linguistics use has

language, a wider models.

speech

within

more up

recently several acts provide out to

computational that by

wider

thrown of

problems developed

indicate Austin of and language

traditional no In longer this

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

a wider structure that acts to will in

framework, and be a act also to

paying speech in

particular acts at a is By a by

discourse One issue

explored

some detail theory. I am assuming view held

indirect

speech approach a level

comprehensive theory, the in

a cognitive that that or The that such language "we

speech

exists,

rejecting is achieved 1979). at

understanding just of do Chapter of it"

a non-rule-like

(Dreyfus One looks

remainder outlines research

traditional have been and of act

speech thrown Artificial

act up

theory by

and recent

some

the

problems in

that Linguistics

particularly Two is

Intelligence. Discourse in. Chapter as is

Chapter Structure Three which is

a description how speech of of

research theory acts of how might may what

into fit be the acts this

includes an exploration form"

how speech description

represented speech may be idea an Bach particular theories of act

a "logical describing. in at of a model surface indirect claim to

a kind Four

Chapter of

describes Chapter Six using

speech extends to

included looks

discourse. Chapter acts Harnish of

Five

and

forms. speech (Bach the and

attempts pragmatic 1979). It speech

provide as pays in

explanation and Harnish

maxims also acts

attention linguistic

use

indirect

politeness.

-2-

1.2

The Seminal

Work of

Austin

Speech his William

Act

Theory

originated presented started to

with at

J. L. Austin, Harvard

summarised University the view in that

in 1955 a

James Lectures 1962). of fact Austin ought

(Austin statement that treat

by examining in

be verifiable

some way. because of

He believed a desire the to term he

many philosophical all utterances to

problems as verifiable

had arisen

statements. statements of

He gave fact.

"constative" also described ... at

straightforward which or

However

statements 'describe' not 'true'

do not all are of

'report'

or and

constate [for of be

anything which] the of as

and 'false' is, not or is

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...,

referring called that not

performative. of this

Additionally type doctrine performatives, go of wrong the he cut Austin

performative 'false' and do as go

utterances 'unhappy'. wrong made

so much can be

This with this

that as

infelicities. between on with He to saw for to constative compare 'certain analysed entailment, some example, with have the sort

Having and the

apparently utterances of about

clear

performative 'implications' made and

performative constative utterances

utterances utterances'. with Although utterances, entirely utterances respect he

discoveries performative implicature of entailment entails

constative and involving I ought, and

presupposition. performative he was constative not

I promise notion that

happy both

performative

entailments.

But here; in

do not only other op. that

want at

to least

say that there

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.

Austin not all

started

by identifying could be verified the nature

a specific as true of

problem or false.

viz. He

that then but

statements in

analysed

some detail

performative

statements,

-3-

then types loose all

attempted of

to

relate and,

these at

ideas the

in

a more general his book,

way

to

all many that

statements

end of

had left He concluded

strands utterances

and a lot that

of

unanswered

questions.

he had examined force,

had a happiness a truth/falsehood that forces what of

or unhappiness dimension and was a

dimension, a locutionary study of

an illocutionary meaning; range of

and he argued illocutionary

was required

the

an utterance.

1.3

Searle's

Theory

of

Speech Acts

A Searle, developing known.

key the

response pupil speech

to of act

these Austin, theory

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

important Searle and in

Searle work Austin and about to the in

(1969,1979) differs distinguished perlocutionary this distinction, from

Austin's between acts,

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

illocutionary A by Austin of second and

discussed the different of of as by then

and of

meaning

a a a

force of

a speech act. speech to force the

gradation directive

speech those

attempts action, would

the a

the carry

hearer a veak used theory, (Searle other with

whereas idea of

a command illocutionary in Veken his

carry as

Searle of logic his

force formal

particularly and Van der

theory

1985). with individual notion direction only that of four"

on the and less by

hand

was more

concerned force.

illocutionary theory there These the is are are:

Another idea of and

been

promoted

Searle's that language. where of this

the

Searle of

maintains fit in

"four

directions i)

Word-to-World, existing fact state exhibits

utterance in the of world the

fits world. fit. is

an

independently of

affairs direction the of

A statement

ii)

World-to-Word, propositional

where content

altered

to

fit

the of

illocution.

An example

-4-

such order. iii) The to being this iv) The

an act

would

be

a directive

speech

act,

such

as

an

double fit the

direction

of

fit

is

when

the of For the

world

is

altered by I name

propositional as so

content altered.

utterance

represented ship null the

example:

SS Titanic". of of fit. fit Where there is word (i. e. no question and those world. where examples of

direction success to is Searle

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

between acts feelings)

expressive his of that world fit. language and

expressing

provide

direction the view the other referential

accept plain argues, of

lies words

purely uttered, however

in then this

twothere denies speech

between no any

possibilities, relationships of likely alien out the is Searle is

between this point the Austin's it is

summarise What is

my criticisms is most totally point with which

will

be of of that

further. of fit

that to

notion view likely of for

something as I shall issue plain

Indeed have

later, "flattening" necessary

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:

1. point The type,

Differences is one of

in the

the

point

of

the

type

of

act. of an act act

The

illocutionary theory. particular tell to people be a

most point the

important is the of

components purpose of

Searle's of is a to

illocutionary for example, are. of the in direction his whole

point

an assertive the force. of central apart. the whole of words apart if fit to

how things component 2. world. falls have of of whole

Searle

considers

illocutionary

point

illocutionary the of direction fit is

Differences The then been fit

between Searle's The four

words theory,

and if

the it

taxonomy above. a priori

falls However

possibilities of direction view The that

described on the as of

notion

rests

assumption between fit falls

two-dimensional and it the can be world. shown

language idea

a relationship of

direction

-5-

locutions world. 3.

sometimes

serve

some purpose

other

than

to

relate

to

the

Differences act (as but are to the is in

in may

the

expressed belief even the of

psychological (as or in want. If an

state. assertion), This we is

An

illocutionary intention interesting that that there relate

express or of

a promise) minor a small point

desire Searle

an

theory.

assume states to This

number

possible then it

psychological ought to

illocutionary acts in in of terms Chapter

acts, of

be possible states.

represent idea

these

psychological when I examine

pursued

Three, acts. force or It Hence point.

underlying

representations 4. Differences

illocutionary in the is

strength is clear

with that assign to

which insisting a be degree intuitive

the is of

illocutionary far stronger to if

point than the

presented.

suggesting.

we can It

strength that together, from one point individual linear) the the same the issue is

illocutionary going some to of

appears say, all point

we are that hesitant relating the

categorise, them have to the

assertive than

acts others, However,

a stronger forceful of the force degree some types linear of of

suggestion to the of

assertion. the enables (or

degree whether onto

illocutionary us indeed that of strength ignore to be the able question come to put nonpurvey of this to

question of

types scale, or

assertive different have

whether act point.

utterance degree to going raises

illocutionary

a different Searle if act is.

illocutionary but exactly for act it what

appears we are It also of

distinction, describe of into 5. as whether, speech Differences they bear this

is

important

a speech

example, theory. in the

considerations

politeness

should

sta,: us illocutionary

or

position force makes status used to strength

of of very

the the

speaker utterance.

and

hearer

on the

Although of it. has but There It a

defining is fairly

difference, clear that types has an effect a person status status the of

Searle relative utterance

little of the a

use speakers

bearing Searle's appears point. to

on

the

in say

conversation, about the this. illocutionary

theory to For be

almost upon of

nothing the higher is

of

example of lower

status effectively and

may make a

a suggestion The by

someone of (1982).

which of

directive. is explored

issue Berry

relative

speaker

hearer

-6-

However, certain for of is

status

also an remove

bears inferior your

a relationship may hand issue

to orders

topic, to

under

circumstances, Kindly

a superior, this is it of their by and

example: more

from

my knee. structure,

Perhaps

relevance

when

considering in an some

discourse nature.

because ability to the

effectively to statuses of the

contextual affect casts one-to-one point. in and between the the way

However, form

the according of utterance

individuals relative Searle illocutionary 6. of Differences the speaker

utterance doubt on the

validity

claim form

relationship

between

the

utterance By this words such

relates Searle is

to

the

interests to the To the

hearer. of

referring and that that course other, lament.

distinction boast case, that on the

pairs assert hand that

as boast pride to It is

P is other regret for

to

P while lamenting P is the to

expressing that case. P is

P is

assert of each

P while quite one that boasting

expressing possible boasting P may well on the other

two P and the is

individuals the form more other of:

contradict that much P.

that take

lamenting I very

A lamentation that..., I to

regret For

hand

conventional. said but such be in as: as of by one

example: player societies we try in

hold

the

International may be seen

Master's

Title,

chess

another, even a our for very as

as boasting, statement might 1983). and be it

different Well, offensive pride and

relatively garden instance difficult boast 7. notes which point it as and

harmless looking (see to nice, Leech quantify

to

keep Japan are

seen

Notions is

remorse verbs

questionable in rest

whether of

such acts.

lament

should in

included to the

a taxonomy of such the as: the

speech

Differences certain relate is "a to class

relations

discourse. I reply, discourse. Austin acts I

Searle deduce, This regarded appear to to further it Van

performative the utterance and of than was

expressions to the rest to

of by

important source more of of no part 1985). 1986),

referred that

Austin. speech

puzzlement" one category, act he

certain particularly

belong the

when (for (1990)). (Searle article Searle named after

referring a

speech this of see

called and final in its

expositive Holdcroft theory

discussion forms der Veken

Smith

However and

Searle's

Furthermore, he plays down

a recent importance. Razor, who first

on Conversation has tended to of

(Searle hide Ockham,

behind the

the

use

of

Ockham's

William the

medieval

philosopher

expressed

argument

-7

"Do explain

not

multiply the as and the in

entities

beyond However

what in

is

strictly case the

necessary argument

to is

phenomena". the strictly which areas, that

this

misguided words down this part

two-dimensional is central as I will act fit acts the to

relationship Searle's to "relate" with the in thesis show

between falls

world certain The idea

badly thesis. of

attempt can in

throughout to another

a speech not

the

discourse notions of If has

does speech

essentially Searle act and may then van be the

sentence-based der Veken

formalised idea it in that the is

(1985). upon what the loses its in force

we allow gone

a speech discourse, the main

dependent notion of 8.

before

that

illocutionary validity. propositional indicating constructs example the the

force

component

meaning

Differences

content devices. affect use of the

that Searle

are

determined recognised force strengthen

by that of or

illocutionary certain the weaken surface utterance. the force

form For of

illocutionary may

adverbs example:

utterance.

For

(1) (2)
The since to the see use

You really You must


of the

must go.
adverb

go.

really is

adds verb to

force oriented,

to

the it is

utterance. very act difficult verbs

But

Searle's

final it of

theory is

how exactly nuances

possible

reconcile force

speech

to

subtle

illocutionary

indicating

devices.

9.

Differences that

between can be, other

those but

acts

that

must

always

be speech as speech for be

acts acts. act

and those This, theory and theory possible eyebrow.


10. linguistic not. fact do of called not This that

need not not

be performed

on the

hand does theory. to is

seem so important example non it would

speech difficult Einstein's hand it of

as a linguistic highly of impractical relativity to signal

For assert

verbally on the by the

that other raising

perhaps

incorrect, merely

is an

disapproval

Differences institution point the

between for is

those their if

acts

that

require and draw those

an

extrathat to do the

performance only that formal to

note-worthy of fit into require by Austin speech

attention into this The institution by Searle.

majority

acts

fall

category category are

comfortably acts that

Searle's

theory.

speech

an extra-linguistic and declaratives

performatives

11.

Differences

between

those

acts

where

the

corresponding

-8-

illocutionary
not. 12. act. the Differences To illustrate

verb

has a performative

use and those

where

it

does

in

the this

style point

of

performance makes and the

of

the

illocutionary between again is to some

Searle

distinction This

performance

of

an announcement point. of delivery into to

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

speech it group whereas falls. of the

category

which

Confiding individuals purpose only of of to of

notification is not generally public to

a select known,

make most is

some a few in

fact

previously The

known implication

individuals. hushed tones, of the

confiding may be

done

whereas audience.

announcing

maximise

the

size

Searle's categories
1.

taxonomy (Searle 1979).


The being

of

speech

acts

consists

of

five

broad

Assertives.

assertive the case, include

class to the

commits truth predict of

the the and

speaker expressed insist.

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

Commissives. future and

These course threaten. These of

are

acts

that

commit

the include

speaker

to

some promise 4.

action.

Examples

commit,

Expressives. in the thank the

express

the

psychological acts of this

state kind include

specified express apologize, 5.

sincerity own

condition; feelings.

speaker's and praise.

Examples

Declaratives. change

These in be make the

are world,

acts

which e. g. I

bring declare the

about X to speaker be

a Y, has

corresponding X the shall

henceforth to

known the

as Y,

assuming

authority

declaration.

1.4

The Formal

Theory

of

Speech

Acts

The Van der

formal Veken

theory

of

speech

acts of

is

described

in force

Searle is

and

(1985).

The notion

illocutionary

central

-9-

to

this Part its the

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

and Van der


they force: define

Veken

op. cit.

p. 7).
constituent components of

seven

1.

Illocutionary a particular assertive the is

Point, type to of

the act.

point Thus the

or

purpose purpose of It

of an is

make a statement point category

about that of

the

world.

illocutionary each broad

essentially act defined

distinguishes above.
2. The degree of

speech

strength the

of

the

illocutionary point acts stronger

point. may than than

As be for I

described stronger others. suggest. 3. The which command this the Mode of for

above, certain example

illocutionary types I insist of speech is

For

achievement. say from of the

The

mode

of

achievement from a

is

that A is is

distinguishes is issued

a request of of the

command. and that Similarly, testifying being it

a position position of

authority authority, command. in of that testifying,

invocation mode of

achievement differs from oath. mode is In of

testifying takes under mode place oath of

asserting the case

under is the

achievement.

To summarise, collection of

the extraa

achievement additions

an amorphous to a speech act

linguistic basic form

that act.

transform

into

a more

complex

speech

4.

Propositional content type it

Content are

Conditions. constraints content predict it put itself.

The

propositional speech act

conditions

on the For that

by the

propositional to

example, already to taken "for op.

makes no sense to pass, to anyway. law of carry Also

something would that possible be

has

come promise place the cit.

similarly out it

non-sensical have

an action is not

was to to

apologize Veken

modus ponens"

(Searle

and van der

p. 16).

-10-

5.

Preparatory certain force", speaker

Conditions. presuppositions for is example able to fulfil

Preparatory "peculiar promising that

conditions to presupposes promise.

relate illocutionary that

to

the

6.

Sincerity that the

Conditions. speech beliefs, believes act

The sincerity performed intentions is in

conditions accordance e. g. just promise with

ensure the the is

speaker's speaker true,


7. The Certain to them,

and feelings assertion he has out his

that made etc.

that

the

or

that

he intends
of have strength stronger

to
of

carry
the sincerity or

degree acts for

sincerity conditions has

conditions. attached a stronger

example

begging than

imploring

sincerity

condition

requesting.

The five

next

part

of

the

formal

theory

maintains

that

there

are

illocutionary 1.

points. point. A statement has the assertive as world.


has to the carrying content commissive out at the some

The assertive if the the speaker

point

presents of
point.

a proposition of the

representing

actual

state

affairs

2.

The point action future

commissive if the

A statement commits the himself

speaker by

specified stage. directive point. is

propositional

3.

The if out the

A statement attempting by to the get

has the

a directive hearer to content

point carry of

the the

speaker action

specified

propositional

utterance.

4.

The declarative point if the

point. world is

A statement changed of the in

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

Given them define complex force we to have act: as

these a base

five for

primitive their

illocutionary group group,

points, of

we can acts

use to more

corresponding acts for each

speech build

primitive speech the a

speech acts

and to of formal each

by adding This is the

extra idea

components behind force the for

illocutionary theory. category Thus of

base. primitive

illocutionary

speech

-11-

1.

The

primitive

assertive illocutionary

illocutionary point with content

force no

has mode

the of

assertive achievement
2. The primitive

and no propositional
directive illocutionary

conditions.
force has the

illocutionary point a future with course the

directive content hearer. that

propositional of action of the

represents

3.

The

primitive

commissive illocutionary

illocutionary point with the

force

has

the

commissive content represents


4. The primitive

propositional content the speaker.


has mode power propositional the of to

condition some future

that

the of

propositional action of

course

declarative illocutionary that the

illocutionary point speaker but with invokes with no

force the his

declarative achievement perform content the

declaration,

conditions.

5.

The

primitive point the more

expressive with primitive complex

illocutionary special

force conditions. acts,

has

the

expressive Having these to defined build forces.

no other

illocutionary acts by

we can on five

use the such

operations identify

illocutionary operations: 1.

Searle

and Van der

Veken

The addition of the

of

propositional forces than Veken others. here

content have

conditions. more propositional given

Some

illocutionary conditions and Van der

content Searle has

The example is that of

by which

report than only

more propositional its propositional or present.

content content

conditions conditions effectively

assert relate entails

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

illocutionary than more other

same point. than that the hearer assert

preparatory for made

conditions a reminder known to

because

necessary has entails been

propositional before,

the

assert.

3.

The addition add sincerity

of

sincerity conditions

conditions. to

It

is

possible forces

to to

illocutionary

-12-

create that P. 4. The

new illocutionary P is to assert that that of point. point the

forces. P while P entails the The restricts mode

For

example,

to

lament that

expressing asserting of

regret that P. of of

Thus

lamenting

restriction

achievement achievement set can in of be its

the the

illocutionary illocutionary under Thus which insist

mode of the point assert

conditions achieved. mode of

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

illocutionary Some illocutionary

sincerity from

conditions. others in the point with Thus which

differ their of is of

degree is

of

strength

illocutionary strength expressed. suggest.

achieved their is

and in

psychological a stronger

assert

Having category in then order go and to on

defined the

the

primitive that complex semantic (figures

illocutionary may be performed acts, Searle tableaux 1.1,1.2

acts upon and for and between Van

for those der

each acts Veken

operations more produce directives the entailment

produce to

assertives, 1.3). the These various

commissives tableaux speech act There which which there and will will are

and show verbs appear be be only

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.

explored introduced three

Chapter is

significant

semantic There

assertives, for this

commissives). and and Our Van list it der of

categories Searle

is

worthwhile identify

exploring

Veken

21 declarative contains: approve, denounce, declare, confirm,

speech

verbs.

declaratives nominate, disclaim,

adjourn, endorse, curse, name

appoint, renounce,

repudiate,

excommunicate, and call.

consecrate,

christen,

abbreviate,

(Searle
The problem

and Van der


with

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.

Assertives p. 219) cit.

confess

argue

testify
r

lament

6
admit ...
assure

swear

...

complain

suggest

Addition Addition Addition -i- = Increase ' = Addition

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.

Commissives cit. p. 219)

swear

consent

assure

vow

promise

accept \Z+

pledge

threaten

commit

= Increase J'= Addition E= Addition

in of of

the degree of Strength Mode of Achievement Preparatory Conditions

of

the

Illocutionary

Point

-151.3 Figure for The Semantic Tableau (Searle and Van der Veken op.

Directives p. 220) cit.

command

order

require

beg

ask

urge

demand

request

insist

tell

direct advise warn

suggest

Addition = Addition J = Addition -}- = Increase

8=

of of of of

Propositional Content Preparatory Conditions Mode of Achievement the Degree of Strength

Conditions

of

the

Illocutionary

Point

-16-

entailment verbs declare of the in this plus very loses

relationships category some flat its added tableau meaning, are of on of are

between built to

them. on the the

Most entailment

of

the

speech

act of

relationship force.

extra that and

illocutionary the suggests nature entailment that to

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

category All dependent relationship the case confines for speech

a different are per

categories. another little within strong the play For

them

se declarations institution except that many

an extra-linguistic to each of other

carried There group any part

institutionalised declaratives They do not speech is for acts as

religion. a separate have

treating acts. of when indirect

other in

example (to be

a theory

discussed it It is would

below). done not to it so be use is There Acts,

example, to given form to

something agreed

consecrated, formula. of

according acceptable a surface

some the

linguistic

ceremonial than the

procedures one in

consecration whereas manner. Formal Speech

other say for

specified, a round-about as of

possible is or perhaps even

make a case

an assertion renaming Austin's

declaratives original devoid the name of

preserving are and category Goffman

"performatives". meaningful contained exchanges entailment within (see for

Expressives relationships Searle's example

similarly many of be

any

speech called

acts ritual

might 1972).

better

When further most from appear speech argue; all. of

examining

the

tableaux

that tableau this these For

actually is

exist

there flat

are

problems. the speech

The assertives act verbs in

somewhat are built

because directly

category "entailment example, but argue is to

assert. to

However

some of

relationships" assure assure act one is one such we verb have at

be totally verb is that

misconceived. entails

act it

assert, whether

from

questionable it is is more the

a speech have to a

Although it

entirely usual

possible for

sentence structured

argument, exchange Schiffrin a position, the position. (3) (4) A:

an argument in the

be a

between (1985) with

participants an argument exchanges the following but at

discourse.

For

example of for

defines paired

as a structure of disputes recorded you were David's of

consisting and support message:

Consider I rang

telephone out. Mum's.

you earlier

B: Oh,

I must

have been

-17-

(5) (6) (7) In (3),

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

A makes an assertion by B, but then of after backing

accepted position we accept also dialogue then is such then There indicate argument something approach
There verb follows: To

B disputes in

and A instead the view that

crumbles

an argument view sense. and of

a discourse structure, we take another why B disputed or force

structure, then Searle's assertion. should A's the

accept

Schiffrin's makes

above is

However (6) is

(3)

an argument in at have in it

merely

no explanation an utterance (3) is would

Searle's that point.

model

as to

Had B not

stood the should

as an assertion illocutionary be an

an implied of It the only

nothing that after

utterance becomes to oriented

argument. by B.

being

disputed wrong with

Hence there essentially

appears verb

seriously of Searle.
are also Permit

the

further is

objections: by

consider Searle and

the Van

speech der Veken

act as

permit.

described

grant the

permission act him to do of

to

someone illocutionary

to

do

something denegation

is

to of

perform forbidding

it.

(Searle
Permit and class, directives exercise The get to thus is

and Van der


placed be within built direct, that to act do

Veken
the

op.

cit.

p. 202).
class of speech act verb act for verbs this for

directive the primitive

must namely

upon yet

speech at the

a glance is permit this

semantic It tableau is is a of

tableau worthwhile directives.

reveals attempt speech to

permit

absent. in the

locate for

primitive the hearer

group, while

direct remaining content

an attempt about

to the that by the in the

something the

neutral

outcome. the the hearer

Directives

have content

propositional a future preparatory out does the the not

constraint of action that

propositional hearer, must be and

represents have of the

course conditions action entail

also

capable content.

carrying direct examining P, I

specified permit, form an of opinion

propositional which suggest. is If

Thus by that

a point direct, as to

made I

clearer

weaker stating

suggest

am merely

-18-

how the is

hearer

may proceed, or not.

I am making the like

no claims

about

whether

permissible (8) this

Consider

following: to use the photocopier to copy

Lecturer: article.
a suggestion Unknown to

You might

(8) article. placed

is

as the

to

how the

student there is of over

obtains a notice department budget". to by

a copy that has

of

an been "No the

lecturer by the

upon

the until was

photocopier further infelicitous carry direct model) out

head merely not

stating Then be worthless.

photocopies suggestion Thus do

notice it P is is then

not to

proved

permission P, and

entailed a stronger is not

a suggestion form of by

to suggest direct

because to the

merely permit

(according either. There request, consider

entailed

are insist for

three and tell, the

pathways however following:

up request

from does

direct, not entail

namely permit,

example

(9) (10) could


In it the is

Lecturer: Student:

Could I'm

you photocopy sorry, I have

this

article? right now, but I

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

budget, In is down merely permit, der Veken is from

obviously that request

response

face.

Effectively

was

a stronger so that (op. cit further a position being permit. grant

does Searle tell an

not

According

between is that in a and order is

order, is of

which issued authority

order

position therefore, without infelicitous. appealing suspect. on cause

entails entails

order being This to Indeed, problems

were

able one

to

permission illustrates speech such act

example

entailments deontic for the

between operators speech

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-

obligation, have order, Veken done it

if

the

bag by not of this

is

not

removed, you of your

then

it

is

not It

my fault, is and not Van

I an der

my duty is also

telling telling

obligations. to the Searle

according act verb:

definition

speech

To tell manner (Searle


In it two one. them refusal; feel that (11), is not I

a hearer which does

to

do something give

is

to

direct of

him in refusal.

not

him the op.


the to act

option p. 200).
of me.

and Van der


am giving if the he of

Veken
hearer chooses speech tell

cit.

option ignore that to

refusal, There

after appear to

all be

my fault forms I it

different Firstly, to do and, in

have do give out say

been

compressed when the I

into want of I this the

might and

someone don't I

something them

effectively when

option where make in

secondly, the public and act. second In

point

an obligation I should interest in the sense which argue In pointing "By exit. my "

interest, yet I The is have first

obligation outcome by of

known, my speech but by the such the

no personal is tell

intended has that been an out belief

Searle,

a deontic Three, an

operator I shall

ignored expression the you

model. as the to (11)

Chapter really is your

is

assertive. saying: the fire

obligation are obligated

speaker remove

effectively bag from

1.5

Indirect

Speech

Acts

Searle speech that acts contains

also (Searle the act act. fit

includes 1979). illocutionary but which The

an attempted An indirect force is uttered with the

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

illocutionary illocutionary they don't

another acts

problem into the model are

indirect Searle

comfortably because speech

Veken theory should the theory is

outlined why in

above indirect

provides and

adequate their place for

acts

used

the

theory. of if it Six but I

Indirect speech is will shall in to act be be

existence them Chapter acts,

speech theory a viable

acts and theory

important

we need of subject the

an adequate language of indirect and

how

devoted examine

to some

the of

problems

surrounding

them

this

introductory

section.

Speech

Act

Theory

has frequently

been

attacked

because

of

its

-20-

alleged example Chapter


In analysis salt?; utter

inability Levinson Two.


his of he and section the

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,

Searle Can you which the

includes reach speaker

an the may with by

utterance in mean so that

interprets mean what

this he says

a sentence and also

another

illocution a request

a different asking and

propositional The

content, idea that the

he makes is issue in analysis speech following

a question. seems indirect (see

utterance but be this discussed for an

both and

a question the whole in

a request of

somewhat speech also The

dubious, acts will Five on

problem Chapter auxiliary 1979, in more

more

depth of

Six, verbs). p. 46)

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

response, conversation. be one of

secondly

we assume third step

Y is

co-operating that the this

Searle's acceptance, speech of within the act

maintains etc., and is of

rejection theory. This

that dubious speech

accordance is one

with

claim

there to not his step. "bolt

no mention another the

permissible the framework steps

relationship of in speech Searle's Searle's act acts done on rests is it

theory. analysis on the essentially to build theory

discuss interpretation The on" theory

remaining of an of indirect indirect

theory and theory acts rests

speech work

needs of

much language

into indirect

respectable speech

usage.

Searle's conventionality

on the thesis

so-called is based as to indirectly the

thesis. that other

The certain

conventionality illocutionary convention. acts such, without that and any

on the

assumption of certain

acts This are can

count attempts

performance why are into

acts

by

explain

illocutionary perceived illocution with by Bach the and what as

presented be

immediately the underlying weak in not points

transliterated There which point out are are

difficulty. thesis They

several

conventionality Harnish (1979).

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

Postsentential the speaker is

and preverbial intending op. out cit. that to

"please" request.

indicates

that

(Bach However, account of of

and Harnish they certain For I want Are point

p. 189). such conventions the do not give an use

irregularities example: you to stop to


(15) is

regarding

postsentential

"please". (14): (15)*:

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,

conventionality between might usage allow us

psychological

states

to

provide

an explanation

postsentential Before and its

"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

shortcomings to indirect (1974) speech

alternate

approaches Sadock indirect utterances use direct. (assuming to be of

may have such In that computed that about the would that a utterances this it

additional is way is from the range the seen the

standardized literal utterance not out within arguments like certain treated op. cit. as pp. have to a and

demonstrate theory concern Searle's tests, ambiguous, 82-83,88-91)

ambiguity of that complex, those discussed Bach and in

linguistic an

phenomena. inferential and he that 1.7 (op. cit.

fact be more

distinguish which and are also

cases section

(Sadock pp.

Harnish

176-183).

A third 192). They

theory call it

is the

presented

by Bach and Harnish thesis:

(op.

cit.

p.

standardization

-22-

the

mutual

beliefs enable the

that hearer

constitute to without infer going

illocutionary the speaker's through the

conventions indirect usual

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

importance work presented in 1.8

later explaining when acts. I

difficulty section of

Harnish's

speech of act

because speech in

its theory

inadequate has been

treatment under

of attack Their

indirect from rival of speech form. that utterance act. In a

approaches, will be speech

particular in from

by

socio-linguists. Two. fact that in the Many an its

discussed acts stem

Chapter the or he an

criticisms indirect direct point of an speech

interpreted (1988)

indirectly however, arises where nor the

simply makes

Schegloff misunderstanding is neither

interpretation form of the

the

direct

indirect

He repair

describes which

a discourse

phenomenon as below:

called

fourth

position

can be outlined Statement. to

(16) (17) (18) (19) Suppose say the

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

a question a act request. theory, the

indirect if a B act it first is be as

interpretation misunderstanding might directly a request. make the

arises, mistake

by speech of interpreting the

response, speech

and thus

answering Schegloff is

question quotes not (a

instead an example as a question

treating the

However (a request)

where but these

statement known discussed (20) (21) (22) (23)


Schegloff

treated,

as what will

as

a in

pre-announcement Chapter Two):

pre-sequence,

Mother: Russ: Mother: Russ:


states

Do you know who is Who? I don't Oh, probably


that

going

to

that

meeting?

know. Mrs. McOwen.


to speech act theory (20) is

according

-23-

either

a request

or as

a question, a not

but

in

the

actual and two is

dialogue because forms

it

is the from the the Russ and he

misinterpreted misinterpretation speech contrary standardization assumes himself was that know act theory

pre-announcement, match speech with act the theory

does then

predicted incorrect. to wrong both his

On support

Schegloff's thesis there that his the category Mrs. mother notion in its is

observations because a mutual McOwen to of is what belief going him is

appear going that to with

is

that mother so that

the

meeting, some as new

expecting

provide

information. sort Consider of

Moreover, discourse the following:

a pre-announcement own right seems

some

questionable.

(20) (21) (21a) (21b)*


If (21a), should (20) was

A: Do you know who's B: Who? B: No, B: Yes, who? who?


then hand if it it

going

to

that

meeting?

a question other

would was not some and

be perfectly a pre-announcement being form presented of along making its force.

natural then with

to

say (21b)

on the be

acceptable If states they this both we

because can of know

B is make

any to

new the

information. psychological of acts, taken what then by the

appeal with

speaker and

hearer, when of as

some

notion speech

believe much known

certain The

criticism

loses

approach is of

socio-linguists, in greater acts is detail taken

conversational Two. Six. The

analysis problem

considered indirect

in up in

Chapter Chapter

speech

1.6

A Critique

of

Searle's

Theory

of

Speech

Acts

To summarise Searle's 1. theory: The

there

are

several

weak points

and problems

with

sentential in

basis particular, of allow

of

Searle's it does

theory not explain to of

seems

to

be

incorrect; Austin's Also it

adequately expositives. a structural of discourse

"source does not

puzzlement" for the

relating possibility and units

relationship structure. 2. The that second Searle of

between

speech

acts

problem, has speech

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

formal op. cit) it

analysis

of

speech is

acts

(Searle as an is be a

Van der

an argument appear that

presented an argument

assertive, more a unit

and yet of to

would

discourse be

whereas

an assertion speech (Holdcroft act.

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

on entailment all speech not acts,

in

the for

formal example

theory the

does directive tableau

not

does

appear it

in cannot

the

semantic fit

of the to

and indeed tableau. interesting can hardly theory. in of this

be made to it is not

into possible

Additionally, entailments be described

between as a

declaratives, and to

comprehensive about well not the appeal

Austin's context

misgivings are perhaps acts

founded. sit well needs with much

indirect theory on it.

speech of

does acts,

speech

and

more work 5. Searle indirect theory


6. There Searle's computational but if

done

mentions speech that


is a

politeness acts, almost


of is rather

as a reason this is an aspect

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

abstraction" then into

theory, is decoded an in

there

must

which

a speech speech

example,

indirect the

encoded

utterance speech

stripped Similarly with an

underlying an utterance, description, of politeness the act. or

we must and to add arrive (Currently, nothing

appropriate the final speech why

perform little

about

particular

chosen).

-25-

7.

The is: other be listed a

final how do

problem,

in

part

related to do act theory examined

to with theory, at

the

previous

one, among they

considerations relate of to speech act be

politeness or all? in should The greater

things part above the

speech will thesis.

problems detail

throughout

1.7

Sadock's

Linguistic

Approach

to

Speech

Acts

A put

somewhat by

different Sadock (1974) based

approach based approach

to on

speech linguistic

act

theory structure.

has

been Sadock

forward

attempts the

a linguistic thesis. are the

to

speech thesis

act is

theory the have is to of forms to not support

built view

on that

ambiguity that Thus, but by

The standardly standardized and direct.

ambiguity used use

sentences meanings. at all,

indirectly of a sentence attempts a range

additional indirect this

literal

Sadock analysing

thesis phenomena. claims ambiguity the form

systematically He examines six

linguistic which he the has

distinct

grammatical required -a

exhibit thesis:

"force-ambiguity", 1. Whimperatives

support sentence

whimperative

modal

{subjunctive} { negative }

you VP?

For

example: (24) (25) Can you Can't


argues form view it

leave

now? him with


the semantic thought to to look in

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

Sadock whimperative support sentence also indirect support distribution that

also

this forms

necessary imperatives act puts thesis such as

behave do

they usage). the

interrogatives forward here. as three Firstly,

Sadock

ambiguity of words

"please"

imperatives

whimperatives.

(26) (27) There action

Please Would

shut

the

door. shut the door. in the use of This please with

you please to

appears verbs in

be a correspondence

imperatives

and whimperatives.

correspondence

-26-

also

occurs (28) (29)

when "please" Shut Would the you door, shut

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

"fractured" (subjunctive) {negative

(please)

(please)

and attempts states respects (30a) (30b)* (31a) (31b)* (32a) (32b)* (33) that

to

show that do not op. cit.

they

they

behave 112).

like

questions

(Sadock

When will Wash the When will Wash the Tell Tell

you wash the car, will you,

car,

or don't

you know?

or don't car,

you know?

you wash the car,

by any chance? will you? car?

by any chance,

me, when will me, wash the

you wash the car will car, you?

When will dishes?

you wash the

and when will

you

do

the

The which with an

evidence may be fractured objection if

presented conjoined

here to

is

that

certain

types cannot be

of so

expression conjoined however see to

interrogatives Bach and

whimperatives. here. the Certain

Harnish may relates

(1979) be to

non-questions in 180). wash the car and some way

conjoined the question

questions (Bach and (34)

non-question op. will cit. you

Harnish When

The

careful )

how

you

answer. {I quickly. Thirdly, interrogatives: certain expressions co-occur with

want )

to

know

imperatives

but

not

(35a) (35b)* Against that points

Wash the When will

car,

someone. car, someone? is evidence to suggest 1975) to

you wash the argument, like

the

whimperative

there

whimperatives out that

can function responsts to

interrogatives. match is because are if

(Green responses

whimperatives This or not

interrogatives require whereas complied also

and not

imperatives. whether require

whimperatives complied they are with not

a verbal imperatives with.

response only

they

a verbal the

response fractured

The evidence somewhat dubious

regarding

whimperative away with an

seems

and may be explained

-27-

adequate (36) (37)


In (36),

explanation When will When will


the whereas may have

of

the

use of

connectives. and mow the and I'll


carries

For

example:

you wash the you wash the


effectively (37) to it do

car car

lawn? dishes?
across presented of the here

do the
forward evidence

when in

connective by rather Sadock than

doesn't. with

The rules structure.

more

for

use

connectives

some

hidden

linguistic

2. or:

Impositives How about

Impositives Sadock's

take

the

form here

of: is

Why don't that

we VP? are to be for this

VP-ing? and not

theory

impositives His evidence may

suggestions support answered refusing distinction this

whimperatives is based on the

or questions. fact that

view

impositives with

positively (in is order not

by "OK" but to very avoid clear are any

must

be refused

a reason

animosity).

Unfortunately

cut. queclaratives such such likes as: as: such as: Does anyone shoot. discovered he?.
approach,

The other VP anymore,

categories

pseudo-imperatives, form another category, John


to

Move and I'll Columbus doesn't


this explained.

Requestions America in?

and Tag-questions:
there presented appear some data

spinach
with to be

Although Sadock has

be problems that needs

1.8

The Inferential

Approach

To Speech

Act

Theory

The forward more attempts basic types by detail.

inferential Bach and Bach to explain of speech

approach Harnish and the act:

to (1979) set

speech and out

act this

theory is worth act

has

been

put in which four

examining schema

Harnish inferences

a speech in

involved

deciphering

i) ii) iii) iv)


The

literal literal non-literal non-literal

and direct and indirect

speech

acts acts acts acts


context and

speech

and direct and indirect


three

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

Linguistic speaker and (S)

Presumption hearer utters share

a common

language, (e)

Speaker

an expression

Hearer(H)

-28-

identify e in the

what

S is

saying, (L)

given and

that that this

H knows H knows mutual people

the any

meaning appropriate that not

of

common

language

background share probably 2) that with about speak helps The the

information. language could not they

Without are

belief would

they and

using, in the (CP). some

communicate Presumption S utters intention. acts, intentions the but

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

People they and

have that

illocutionary with them overt to

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

uttering literally. Bach op. an cit.

speaking

speaking

assumptions, and Harnish infer first

and

Harnish p. 21)

developed which act attempts from that

a speech to

act

describe

may H,

illocutionary of all, realises presumption, this is

an utterance. S has infer made that in some S L, of

By the by

linguistic that

H may that the just In of of the meant the first

e and

something of

e means amount

language. language, determine and

However, H needs what that to

because more than by only e.

large the other those those hearer by using steps

linguistic words, given to was to

S meant S meant determine suggest

ambiguous then Bach of

one

meanings meanings is able certain of

H has and the beliefs form of:

which that is Hence

intended determine mutual inference

Harnish

interpretations (MCBs).

H's

S is

uttering ...

e. and by e, or in L. by e. by e is contextually less

a) e means b) c) S means

... The supposition appropriate.

S means S means

that

S means From the that S is fact

... 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 ...

some illocutionary e. by e. that U(P) literally, that P.


extend indirect literal S could connected that P. Harnish This is P, This for not in the acts acts

force

F.

To summarise:

S means S is S, if S could S is

saying

speaking be F-ing that


then

is P.

F-ing

that

P.

F-ing

Bach direct The

and acts, steps

Harnish literal for by that to Find-ing by speech Bach

schema and

to

include

non-literal indirect there acts. is There a is the

non-literal firstly, F-ing identifiable in some F-ing idea

indirect H that P F-ing that and

are:

realisation some Find

be merely a way that

that

P.

under that of both P, the direct in

circumstances also proposed indirect Three. be

such

S could schema and Chapter

gives

identifying in more

acts.

described

detail

The psychological if it it is

speech

act

schema outlined of it is first not,

above

is

dependent an utterance going on to also they

upon to interpret

the see

plausibility and if

examining only then

direct

as an indirect speech

utterance. act taxonomy

Bach and Harnish in which acts. of

propose distinguish

an

alternate communicative acts are

and conventional broadly speaking the

speech

Conventional acts as

speech Searle's into four and

same class acts are

declaratives. categories: acknowledgements.


The speech H act main

Communicative constatives,

speech

subdivided

directives,

commissives

thrust even

of

their the as that

argument fine

rests details have of only

however, how for

on

the

schema,

though

example sketchily is may the not at

interprets out.

an utterance They of suggest how

indirect even if are the

been act then that

worked a exact

speech

schema it

model

speech

acts

interpreted of inferences act

least makes. bare

be

a "rational However they the

reconstruction" admit that the

hearer the

speech

schema

is

only

bones

of

strategy:

-30-

That attests

we cannot to their or Harnish state:

readily complexity blatant

identify and simplicity.

all subtlety,

their not

ingredients to their

non-existence (Bach Furthermore and they

1979, p. 93)

We

suggest

that mutually

every

interpersonal rules

situation that apply

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

make that with

to

rationalise work. to fit forms they

indirect They into such are the as

acts

absent that the type is to

Searle's seem standard

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

involve For this

speech

act,

suggest i. e. the that

of

inference down acts. if out the the H can for indirect as

short-circuited, part they is of admit the

directly speech because, to rule intent, search

that This, schema literal

schema

poses

a problem then,

short-circuited, intent the in as: as primary

instead infer without implication salt, ambiguity problem

and intent

identify This, such

indirect turn Can you

it. forms

leads pass (see solve

to the the this

standard regarded in 1.7).

systematically and thesis. to the speech Harnish

ambiguous attempt to

Bach

standardization first points of to all, how the

They they circuited beliefs hearer having is that through to to claim

conventionality act schema state

thesis, may that be the enable

which shortmutual the

without that infer go

multiplying constitute the speaker's the usual

meaning. illocutionary indirect steps. of

They

conventions intent They immediately, then point

without out that it

through to not formulate

possible does

a notion illocutionary such

illocutionary conventions. become is achieved the literally belief illocutionary

standardization It is only

require use that some make that

constant They state in to In in other this U is

illocutions

standardized. by a mutual

standardization it would with is

belief principle force. that uttering

that

context, the utterance there

violate its

conversational determined between S and intent H in

words, particular

a mutual S's

context,

indirect.

Another

aspect

of

speech

act

theory

addressed

by

Bach

and

-31-

Harnish generated; Harnish 1.

raises and p. 238, Speaker the etc.

the they op. cit.

question propose ) which

of

how speech

act

descriptions model basic (Bach

are and

a speech consists of

production of nine

steps: concerning H's beliefs

S has a variety and direction

beliefs of the

and desires discourse,

nature

2.
3.

S forms
S attempts various

a series
to intents.

of

pragmatic
the

intents.
of fulfilling these

predict

consequences

4. 5.

The utility A particular of

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

pragmatic 8. 9. The most

expression uttered.

selected.

Expression

The appeal describe interpreting authors to the

Bach the the

and Harnish cognitive methods direct

approach point of

to view

speech because used

act of in

theory its

has

an to and

from

attempt

of

inference

generating however add as

and indirect there presented. is

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

critics act theory

however have

and

many

criticisms of the problems

arisen acts

because into from the

caused speech

integrating act theory because features of make example it

indirect has it also is

speech been based

theory. different that in onto an to for to an

However angles: are

attacked on which to the are map mood mood pose form a short

two

firstly certain way types. act,

assumption identifiable utterances indicates points problems points directive of money

there

utterances possible the the

a systematic speech act

that For

indicative imperative

assertive

speech

whereas indirect

a directive. this assumption, and

Obviously, particularly the in indirect the

speech when the

acts surface indicates

assertive would month).

interpretation case of a hint: I'm

(this this

happen

very

-32-

If in

it

proves

impossible way, then lifting this does might it

to

relate

linguistic necessary theory to be to

form resort

to

function to pure from One way After ways of of when

a systematic

becomes speech not be act seem to

pragmatics, linguistic way the all, being possible someone is out of

i. e. form this why ought and

entirely very in form

away desirable.

problem indirection to

describe and what the an

a systematic it takes.

reasons it

is

used to

be possible because if

describe are impossible

different infinite to

indirect, ways, speaking

there

number recognise

then

it indirectly. for

becomes

Levinson to forces speech of reject but act the

(1983)

example, assumption

suggests that

that

perhaps have of

we

ought literal mapping way

fundamental should

sentences on the This abstraction" the to lead to speech idea is

concentrate onto sentences of level

instead in "levels at in

forces the there then of

context. of which trying would or

another

specifying If

problem is is no

mentioned act a can detailed reject views of be

earlier. specified taxonomy the what notion

there act

no point This

map out us to

speech of act

types. acts

either our

speech actually

altogether is.

modify

a speech

Levinson replaced operation terms on of i) of with

suggests the

that that

the

notion

of act

a literal could must beliefs,

force be viewed be

could as

be an in

idea

a speech

on a context sets of

and that

a context

understood knowledge

propositions

describing Thus he states:

and so

speaker An

and hearer. assertion the a

that speaker

p is

a function not

from

a to

context p to ... the

where into justified ii) A

S is in which that

committed committed

context true that is not

S is p.

belief p is

promise S of

a function to in

from bringing

context the which

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

1983, p277) proposals have been extended by Gazdar (1981). If

-33-

we

reject

the forms has

notion and the

of

force

then

there

is

a wide

gap

between Although (above)

surface Levinson there is

underlying a set as to of underlying goes

representations. representations in that set that or

described rationale are

no

what the

how

those them. context the ways There

representations The to context

derived of us no

from

utterances as

embody from recognise the

representation gives This use

an assertive how we are a very

a function to gap use

idea leaves and

going

assertive. that is of of we can however, propositions propositions to

theory language

large

between language. act If with onto reflect then to

how we actually to representing knowledge in

a certain

appeal

a speech etc.

in these

terms sets

describing can be used, act

beliefs, perhaps as an

conjunction concept that

pragmatic an actual those the to the and

rules surface beliefs

map the form etc. of that of with

speech certain

abstract

linguistic by the

features pragmatic that will rules, be be a as to

constrained a powerful speech function indirect surface

we have hold with way that on

beginnings the idea

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

theory. signal often certain a given

seem for it

systematically please, case that of the

illocutionary a request. structures force and perhaps of other

example: is an the

so much indication that in

indication of

underlying speech because it act. is when in some

components is used

make many

up the

please of thus

requests is

a level and hand, the force by level

politeness, must be marked

which

obligatory

making way. way, its

a request, On the such as other a hint, might whereas some be the possibility A second

linguistically in is a very omitted the

when

making of

a request politeness into indirect into the

indirect because hint the so aim as is

marker the hearer a very ambiguity

presence

interpreting strategy, utterance, thus request

a request, to it introduce could

using of as

that the

accepted of in attack structure. to

an assertive declining Six). act theory

instead, the

giving (I

hearer this

option

implicitly

explore

Chapter on

speech If

comes notion not

through that that

the a speech this

study act is or

of

discourse roughly

we accept (and it

the is

equates

a sentence

clear

-34-

should discourse integrate There structure, there speech Two.

be

the has

case), some act form

then of

if

we are

to then

accept we must of

the

idea

that to

structure, into a theory that problem discourse will be

be prepared structure. identifiable but equally,

speech are those in are act some theory.

theory

discourse has no

who advocate case the of

discourse does that not are

which

arise,

theories This

incompatible further in

with Chapter

issue

explored

Levinson superseded and the that great is by in

also

suggests complex, what of the

that

speech

act

theory

may come

to

be

a "more a sense

multi-faceted I am setting that out

pragmatic to do, by

approach", recognising speech

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

cognitive language. speech clear be.

science, Each act it At

disciplines the to more what these exactly level acts,

sets

theory becomes the

questions speech there are of

less should

philosophical of speech

concerning speech of acts how

taxonomies which are

notions (Holdcroft

whether and a has

inexpressible acts can be

1978) into science be

indirect of speech

speech acts.

incorporated

theory several there the is

However that require

cognitive to the the

new problems the problem and of secondly

answered. speech of wish how to of The is too

how we derive there for presuppose some of in cognitive (for is the

correct question

utterance utterances of these

appropriate questions at approach problems of is and

act the

we

perform. speech traditional vague, knowledge" problem acts are it

existence level. example) of

representations philosophical explains and these form

Searle general It

terms totally level at

"background avoids the speech as order up to some to a

"some

inference". some cognitive that issue theory

of

whether

there

which it" in stand

represented, have some leaky is

to

argue the

"we

just

do

philosophers prop up

to

avoid

completely that can't

philosophical

-35-

rigorous between Sadock linguistic of this

analysis. the (1974) level we act have models act

Linguistics of words that of

has and speech

the

problem act verbs structure. data to

of

the

relationship and indeed highest to all our

meaning has

speech act

theory are at

argued in terms to are

the Added

grammatical empirical

examine

see

whether This

speech that

psychologically may have to be

plausible. very complex.

suggests

speech

theory

1.10

Computational

Models

of

Speech Acts

Speech Natural success, new insights One Allen collected information was interested

act

theory

has been used programs throw

in

Artificial with varying

Intelligence degrees of

Language but

Processing

AI has managed to speech act

up new problems

and provide

into influential for

theory. was that of Allen of (1983), the of see also Allen and he more

program a more detailed of exchanges

(1987)

description between station often

program. the public that

a corpus clerks in than Patron: Clerk: 1983, this People

members and one the

on Toronto was that for.

phenomenon provided

clerk

information (38) (39) (Allen To explain i)

was asked When does 3.15 gate

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

some action. in another

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

information perceived answer. In system type which sets order must

because that it

add the

number

to

be able to

to

play

the

role

of and takes

the

clerk,

a computer The action schema null)

be able

represent (1983,

plans p. 117)

actions. the and form

represented consists of formulas of

by Allen a name, in the

of

a set. of

parameters

(possibly

following

classes:

-36-

i)

Preconditions action's

- conditions is to

that succeed. that

should

be true

if

the

execution -

ii)

Effects successful

conditions execution of

become action. action at

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,

INFORM(Speaker, precondition: effect:

Know(Hearer, P)

Know(Hearer,

body:

Mutually

believe(Hearer,

Speaker(Want,

Speaker(Know, Hearer, P)))


be

A plan an target plan it the must

can

represented onto

as a goal

a partial state. then, target at both If

ordering we see the by the

of

actions state

mapping as a a plans

initial that of

state is

a goal can out state.

being to in

aimed achieve order to to in the be be the to

at, this arrive

program working goal

construct which

action execute

Additionally the ways patron). to off a of

system

needs goals and plans and

able able

to to

reason

about plans (of

achieving There catch train). are

recognise the (planning such

the

two

system:

BOARD plan to as meet

(planning someone

a train) So,

MEET plan with

presented

an utterance

(40) the system

The train first and using is

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

speech Given that plan. top

criteria

as sentence to rules are are to called method and

utterance does goals At the out this into

a request plan

now attempts construction

into

a the

by using sub-goals.

expand

These inference was

expansions rules trying are

called to

"expectations". attempt in to work the a the a

same time the these and

plan speaker

used

what

achieve

making Then

utterance, forward expectations plausible


Having obstacles to

expansions chaining

"alternatives". is used when to this

backing meet the

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

together There way to The to is

alternatives this within approach a when illuminating to of see the

pragmatic to speech "be based

framework. acts appears

recognition towards impossible

length not to

maxim plan

informative". approach speech acts. can

Also be Consider

used

explain

some

indirect

(41) (42a)* (42b)


If (41) question. what that (41) the he is we take is

Do you know where Yes. Yes, its just


based as

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

information an attempt the Then it

interpreting had to use in

we make asking

speaker wanted interpreted

when

question becomes

the

telephone).

indirectly. is not without the clear its problems plan this (1985) however. are The domain could a goes

Allen's heuristics specific be extended for way

approach used and to it to is by

determine no means

appropriate whether Litman and

approach has plans with

an unlimited

domain. developing the Discourse

developed which

system some of be

introducing, towards integrating

modifying

plan-based structure next

approach and

a theory acts will

discourse discussed An

structure. in more at detail speech his domain

speech

in act system is the

the

chapter. has been made and repair system in the is by Appelt

attempt He called

generation KAMP assembly user acts of

(1985). Planner.

Knowledge and the

Modalities of a system complex novice are

KAMP's

electro-mechanical seeking requesting assistance. and

devices. The

The speech

modelled

informing.

KAMP is representation Allen work set

a hierarchical of plans,

planning called a plans

system

that

uses

a non-linear Whereas Appelt's a particular making of four a

procedural from of

network. utterances,

concentrated is of concerned beliefs utterance.

on inferring with and the

question

how holding in form an

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.

linguistic with acts, For the the

illocutionary above the the top

example platform, platform.

knowing So This the the fact

-attached(pump, preconditions in the same

platform). such place as as PL)) the to

expanded the computer

apprentice is expanded

(John). into

Do(John, remove tool arrived that about this from to the is at

remove(Pu, pump required by from

platform. out this

However action

carry the

(this PL)

conclusion and discovering he

expanding tool is

sub-goal

remove(Pu, Rob then

a certain John tool, the use and so platform (and subgoals of cycle each acts of

required, that do

examines not know to John

what anything

knows about

discovers not but only

John

does

we need need it is, down critics criticism

a request to inform by to the an

remove about

the which act). using and

pump tool The the after KAMP surface is speech a

we also where generated and and

possibly are

ostensive lowest level 1977)

further cycle the finds speech sort acts.

plan-generation of expansion

(Sacerdoti has associated been

completed, with the

functional and unifies

description it with

a teleological representation schema

grammar, of surface

which

schematic in

grammatical the

Filling

grammatical

produces

the

final

utterance.

Allen's to speech act

and

Appelt's in

work AI.

are

representative probably approaches work act is of is

of

the

approach up us more

theory they act

Although these

throwing give

questions insight it, to into some

than

answer, theory.

further because a Gricean it as

speech extent framework how

Allen's speech work

important to

marries and utterances

together Appelt's can

theory value be

pragmatic illustrates

because

reasonably

interpreted

-39-

multiple computational speech act This has tended

speech

acts. give

However,

if

they

achieve into the

nothing complexity

else, of

models recognition. in turn, to

us some insight

perhaps in

serves

as a warning speech act

that theory

to that

assume, there

as is as

happen reliable

classical way of

a systematic, a guide for

utilising mistaken.
as a pointer the from as the idea

grammatical

indicators

speech
work to an speech

act
also act

type
acts

is

Allen's dimension producing be guided

to that

another in act proposed are governed the

important process of

theory: utterance such that called

appropriate by pragmatics, suggested

a speech ones

might by

perhaps Grice by an

(1975). over-riding may be maxims, maxims thus

Grice

"talk-exchanges" the co-operative

principle, subdivided by must Grice). into In

principle, presumptions situation, are to apply and

which (called these are

various any

conversational conversational/social if they The

be mutually to four the sets status of

recognised of maxims: exhorts rules.

elevated of The

co-operative quality, give to the be right truthful

principle relation amount and The maxim the maxim and of not of of

consists manner. information, to say

quantity, us to us

quantity the for

maxim quality

maxim is

exhorts insufficient be

that

which states us to

there that be it act

evidence. relevant and

relation manner At have the act, that to

simply exhorts first do with of

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

sight, speech indirect

theory, acts.

problem we are we

speech violating obscurity speech

indirect

immediately avoid

manner If of

should indirect must

expression. a theory theory that it that is

incorporate then indirect use the act, account an there

acts, why to

be acts

something are used. act in

speech indirect fact

To reply a certain

speech is one the that also

situation use an

enough, speech give some

simple a direct of

wherever exists, speech

we can and act our is

indirect must in

theory chosen

why

indirect

preference.

Additionally, structure simply and leave to it in state at

there relation that that. to there

needs speech are are

to

be some account theory. set certain It of is

of

discourse not act that enough types govern

act

a certain clearly

speech rules

There

-40-

how

speech

acts

fit respect

into to is

discourse speech acts

and there

are

many

unanswered for why the a

questions example, is not

with if

and discourse a speech be a speech act act

structure; type, type? maps not an then If onto

a question also it

considered to

an answer is that

considered is because form, this are that

answer particular

a question then that falls

clearly is

grammatical because questions that is

adequate come to that

explanation, consider must to

response asked of

down when we Another speech acts

indirectly.

problem in

be faced

up to in

analysing that razor,

relation do not a lot theory of in

one another perhaps that

discourse.

To argue Ockham's

these is to

relations ignore act

exist, problems the wider

by invoking become evident of

when examining

speech

context

discourse.

-41-

2.

Discourse

Structure

2.1

Introduction

Discourse sequential Discourse interaction conversation telephone candidates of For that of

structure

is in

concerned discourse

with is

the

explanation and text

of

how

organisation in this context two

explained of This at some

understood. that involves casual event,

refers or more

to

any body

between such

speakers. encounter in

includes social

as one might

conversations, for jobs etc.

interaction All of these of

a classroom, involve different

interviewing some form

examples

interaction example cannot the

between certain in

speakers

a somewhat in

nature. conversation

things

can be assumed conversation the social

a social of

a telephone in a formal a doctor issue

because

the the

proximity rules for of a

participants in with central a formal that of

conversation, are different

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

question structure in the

perhaps in

whether can

discourse

say a classroom conversation.

situation

same way as say social that all there forms that of each is

So a separate to a discourse, distinct in terms

assuming to

a formal

structure or are there

universal discourse

discourse have their

types layout?

own variation

structural Clearly

an introduction to this or discourse is to enable

to

speech

act

theory some

followed explanation.

by

an The it

introduction reason is with back for

structure us to

needs

can ask the to integrate for the of

question speech this

whether act

possible, discourse some

indeed

desirable,

theory goes

structure. way, Austin

The precedence recognised out an analysis

question of that

importance the category

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

verdictive, as well... refer to

exercitive, An enormous conversational

behabitive, number [of

or

commissive ...

expositives]

seem to (Austin Searle speech also acts Some

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

utterance (Searle However missing his the in his to

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

conversation rules for

in speech way

same way that is

we have "no".

a set

acts? " that act

a definite of that if

Another bearing even

theories theory act is

discourse theories the us to

structure of discourse to which of to that be of

have could totally the

on speech threaten

speech for this

theory force

two prove assess

incompatible, we have got is act the

would

two

wrong more

and if coherent

we find then for

that

our

theory

discourse re-examine this is of the

structure speech indeed indirect

we would example he calls

be forced suggests for of

theory. case, in

Levinson particular, in

a re-examination findings and Sacks from

speech

acts,

the of

light

conversational 1983, p. 356). In approaches analysis example. been example this to

analysis

approach

Schegloff

(Levinson

section discourse of

describe structure. Sinclair is

first

of

all is

two the (1975)

competing discourse is a good has for

The first and Coulthard conversational amongst

approach

which

The second

approach

analysis others,

which see

developed (Schegloff

by Schegloff and Sacks


are extent is

and Sacks 1973).


important compatible not. At lower in with marriage for example categories

These analysis conversational structural approaches however Sinclair op. cit. ), is

approaches to some

because with levels the speech between

although speech of act

discourse theory, the analysis descriptions, two. In the

analysis categories have some is not

description

included similarities a perfect model low level

discourse act the

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

Conversational largely reasons In discourse incompatible that will

analysis with be described the

on

the

other

hand

appears act theory

to

be for

conventional in section between

speech 2.2. speech

exploring structure

relationship

act

theory

and

we need to

ask three

fundamental

questions:

1.

Is

there

a definite (1986) the discourse true,

structure for example,

to

discourse, claims analysis but are with that

or the

is

it

merely

an

illusion? described indicative Even of if

Searle in of this is acts, speech

relationships are not

conversational structure, there are relational (this issue

approach mere the appear in is

"regularities". current to theories have some One).

problems

speech on seems

because acts

aspects

bearing It

was discussed that there

Chapter no (see

somewhat to discourse.

implausible There that These there problems discourse are

structure Chapter

whatsoever One) speech the that act

several problems

pointers with be solved

indicate theory.

are

conventional by exploring acts.

may well structure

relationship

between

and

speech

2. to act

The

second

question and in that what it

is

that is does must

assuming

that

there

is

a structure with theory? speech The has it if stands, speech to

discourse theory, to

fundamentally it be affect that

compatible speech speech act because Furthermore, theories explanation but also how by of can how it act

way

answer incorporate it act does

this some

question sort of

theory as

relational

aspect

allow is

for

a relational to fit in must with be

dimension. existing a plausible acts, are

theory

of

discourse of how it to of acts and is how also over

structure, relates other discourse. relate the first to not

then only

there to other

speech that

relates theories speech

discourse This discourse speech to under is

phenomena would include

explained

an explanation how speech acts the form This conversational theory.

markers, act in a pair why

be paired It

constrains surface

second. is

desirable another organisation absent from

explain certain fairly

one

preferred of analysis,

circumstances. central speech to act

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

discourse of discourse This by a the

structure organization is strictly level the rules almost because with catered

we

must operate

also

accept

that of and of come of of

independently the Sinclair organization

theory. model At

for hierarchical above that

in

certain and are is

speech govern

acts adjacency independent

exchanges exchanges theory. must rather The and or be This

certainly at some are

level

discourse and are

concerned than how and

how topics ideas model the

organised beliefs to for

individual Coulthard in

and

Sinclair at higher

relates

classroom example, such

levels (see come that at it at into is

structure, 2.2)

transactions, strategies can see

section play. totally two

considerations

acceptable levels; one bound a plausible way be within bound the

to

have

an

of act

discourse theory act and

least other

independent up with theory up with hierarchy. it. of a

the

integrally stand in as

However

speech language, discourse

theory then structure it

is

to

how we use theory of

must at

some level

some

3.

The

third and

question that theory, (1983) it

is

assuming to what

that be is

there

is

structure incompatible

to

discourse, with theory? claimed theory such then in speech

proves then

fundamentally the future (1988) for for

act

speech example

act have whole if

Levinson that the

and Schegloff analysis

conversational and these of claims

approach

puts

the

doubt,

need close is to the replace

scrutiny. speech of

However act theory,

an explanation it must act

discourse of solving does.

be capable currently

same sort

problems

that

speech

theory

Section structure. an interesting

2.3

describes at best

some computational incomplete, some of

models these the plan

of

discourse often posed give by

Although

models problems based

insight For

into example,

discourse 1983), Gricean insertion

analysis. suggests maxims. sequences

Allen's

model of

(Allen the into

a possible Litman

computational (1985) in also

explanation gives some

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

mistakenly based on speech if

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,

distinction becomes the less structure

between clear. of

analysis and dialogue different At consists the of

conversational attempted they

analysis to analyse

Coulthard for which

propose levels

a hierarchical for the comes

structure analysis the of lesson Each form

descriptive top level of their

discourse. which transaction

analysis of

an unordered of (T) a preliminary one. a set of

series ordered

transactions. of the

consists Mn) P is terminal

exchanges

PM (M2... in and which Ta

exchange

Ma

medial

exchange

(Sinclair The parentheses transaction exchange. boundary the also meat known

and Coulthard indicate must consist that

op.

cit., is

p. 25) optional, a preliminary exchanges The medial teacher and are so the and smallest medial

a unit of at

least

The preliminary markers of the between interaction

and terminal transactions. between

essentially are are

exchanges pupil, and

as teaching are

exchanges. themselves broken down further consists and optional of an into moves,

The exchanges of which a typical

classroom

exchange response

initiation move.

move followed Typically by the pupils

by an optional

feedback

an initiation teacher to which

move contains the teacher feedback


consist of be of Sinclair roughly

some new material may elicit to


of

presented from the

a response response.
acts

and finally
The moves

provide
themselves level

the
one and

pupils
or more

which

form

the analysis.

primitive Acts

Coulthard's together for The for example second

discourse into OK, group one act three right is is

may

grouped boundaries of silence.

categories: and well or with

markers even

discourse periods the

short

concerned

controlling

discourse,

example

-46-

called pupil

nomination as

which

serves in for the

to

enable

the

teacher The third are

to

nominate group

a has

a participant content and directives.


is clear based equating therefore on

discourse. example there

informational informatives
It not warn work

acts

called

that act act

Sinclair theory. theory too

and

Coulthard's they with

work themselves their

is

entirely against

speech speech

Indeed closely

own

We are an

interested

[on the or part of

other

hand]

in in

the the

function discourse

of

utterance the it

an utterance

and thus are it

sort is

of

questions to

we ask about evoke it

an utterance whether to mark

whether is

intended its, lf, discourse, op. in

a response, is intended

a response in the

whether

a boundary (Sinclair This issue


A structure conjunction identified speech are one be with acts?

and so on. " cit. p14). and Smith


a study and extent be been

and Coulthard is also discussed


that as the speech Sinclair Firstly, groups remotely to naturally model act and the of like

(Holdcroft
arises from by is:

1990).
of discourse in acts with that and there or there only might

question such with in

proposed theory

Sinclair to what

Coulthard may the

Coulthard's point acts has in

model already the act. as

identified made model

three of

distinct is

discourse Of these,

them

a speech acts speech speech such act

a temptation their

equate in between act and may be

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

theory, acts and in

there

to-many example, elicitation, discourse state(ment) discourse account discourse teacher their an

discourse the

acts.

question clue

figures

discourse

amongst by

others. the for within speech this the

Additionally, acts: might be

realised

command. to

One reason other within so named acts the

relate position check a task

discourse for

discourse; it do only and

example after

is

because to act

occurs is

for the

the

pupils discourse

concerned occurs words, in in would

progress. introduction acts situated, totally

Whereas, of are all what

metastatement In upon the been hence other context defined there

is

to

follow.

discourse they that are is

heavily

dependent speech of any acts

whereas independent

have

context,

-47-

some difficulty Sinclair structure is little the it a form of of

in

attempting

a marriage analysis which one is is

of

the

two. concerned with the It has where Thus and a

and Coulthard's classroom discourse over the discourse where direction

only rigidly of

structured. participants and also any the for point. Sinclair example,

(group) of over the

the

control teacher is clear

discourse, at map

can effectively that it onto would

take not

control to

be easy

Coulthard telephone

model

open discourse between


have Burton been

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

However discourse attempt. Sinclair i. e., acts the that

situation. Her and modifications Coulthard she called

(1981) were at

made

different all at to

hierarchy. made some markers. for example

level of

act, she

additions She hey, added which

what would

"expressive out of place

particles" in is

a classroom. in and for fact the a a rest

This very of the

categorisation complex utterance treatment "Requests such as: Can interaction see

appears

disguise discourse Schiffrin markers. rights" question? point to of

what markers (1987) Other which This view

between for of example discourse speaker's ask you from be the a

comprehensive include items

modifications are however of speech of such pre-topic is act

for I

a more theory,

interesting as speech it

modification appears act. and She to

an attempt includes

categorise

a type pairs

indirect as

also

conversational

accuse/excuse

inform/comment.

At existing i)

the

level

of

moves she adds the

following

to

the

list

of

moves: supporting move. moves, which serve to support the preceding

ii)

challenging the previous

moves, move. moves, in

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)

bound-opening informative framework. and

which acts

allow to enlarge

the

addition the discourse

of

comment

Burton boundary

also exchanges

recognises and

two

types

of

exchanges: exchanges.

explicit Boundary

conversational

-48-

exchanges conversational transaction. proposed the

mark

the

boundary are a the certain can,

of

each

transaction, exchanges to the that

whereas make up a

exchanges There is as they

"normal" appeal for

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,

identifies conversational are of

explicit op. cit. take ).

boundary The at

exchanges

boundary the

exchanges

optional

place

openings with an by

transactions, (or several the work. same re-opening

conversational challenging moves. described The in

exchanges move) and are

begin

opening one or

followed level is

supportive as that

transaction Sinclair and

essentially original

Coulthard's

Conversational

Analysis

Conversational formulated important Schegloff by work and

analysis ethnomethodologists has been by

on the

other of which

hand some and and

was of

originally the most (1974), (1978).

Sacks, Schegloff

Schegloff (1972)

Jefferson Pomerantz

Sacks

(1973),

The basis the of adjacency utterances.

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

some point The first

produce

the

second is the

part that two

of

the the

adjacency two

pair. are

requirement between occur

utterances of the

adjacent. pair, insertion (1) (2)


(3)

However, there frequently

components

adjacency as

what

Schegloff

(1972)

describes

sequences: A: B:
A:

I'd In
No,

like

a Farnborough

number

please.

Hampshire?
Kent.

(4) (1) and and (3)

B: OK. what (4) is to form

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

an adjacency in another a one.

inserted just

between. pair in

Insertion between. four

restricted example inserted criterion conditional given relevant if He the also a

describes between of

sequence Schegloff should Conditional of a pair, from to

where (op. cit.

adjacency

be replaced relevance a second

with is part Levinson

relevance. first part

a criterion is

immediately suggests that

and predictable second states rule if it is part that that to that fails what

expectations. then it

appear,

is

noticeably sets up is

absent. not a an a set

conditional that

relevance say a question discourse, to. two parts This rhetorical above, occurs and is

formation answer of

specifies count have

must but

receive it is

as well-formed to is be attended that the

expectations The second issued

criterion by different unless

of

an

adjacency appears In is an to the act

pair pose

are

speakers. we consider

criterion

few problems

questions. there at the

Sinclair called of what

and Coulthard a meta-statement. type

model,

described

A meta-statement dialogue structure

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

so much will I be intend

a statement got In what his

seminar and it as

Searle why". of

wrong,

a sense, is to

a question, has no answer

encompasses a second is taking

follow. but

adjacency conversation

pair, and

conversation where the

analysis turn

about rigidly

not

seminars,

-50-

defined. Coulthard

However is not

the that

classroom far

situation from

described conversation. pair the to

by Sinclair

and

removed is that

The third first must except relationship relationship speech act part

criterion and a second is not

an adjacency the idea that

is

ordered

as a pair

part, particularly the first

adjacency our a

be ordered to

significant ordering part and is imposes the absent

argument, structural Any such

observe between between theory. criterion first part out

that the the

second. in

two parts

conventional

The final particular Levinson

is

that

the a

two parts particular

are

typed

so that part.

a As

requires

second

points for limited to

Unless least seems,

any given set of

first

part

there the tight

is

a small will

or cease,

at it in

seconds, the its

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

Levinson, of preference part there that This The idea

Not pair operating is

potential of over and rather equal the at than are a

the

first that such

states

alternatives is dispreferred. one. i. e., they

preferred

a linguistic preferred much simpler. a significant well given. in an or

psychological unmarked, dispreferred in delivery, of why

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

dispreferred form. account some act theory, markers

mitigated This contains speech discourse

of explanations for and

the

matching of it needs

of

first usage some

and that account investigation.

second is of absent the

parts in of

language gives

example clearly

use

further

On organisation, three are or repair


Repair

top

of there

what are in

is

essentially level

local structures The most

conversational that important map of onto these

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,

mishearings (repair by the by

non-hearings. of other the

may be self-initiated item), or of the other initiated

speaker someone of

repairable the

(repair

than might

speaker

repairable

item).

An example

self-repair (5) A: have

be: the monks get there? I mean how could they

How did earned

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

example containing (6) (7)

summons the reason

a pre-sequence the summons.

prefigures

e. g.

A: B:

Hey! Uh?

(8)

A:

Keep off types pair of

the

grass. include pre-invitations, to that be sets followed the where by ground an for

Other the first

pre-sequences with is

starts

a greeting, a question

invitation. a request, (9) (10) (11)


Another

A pre-request e. g. A: Can I buy

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

pre-announcement. suggests, (12) a pair A:

pre-announcement precedes some

announcement.

example:

Guess

what.

(13) (14)
In there

B: What? A: Its egg mornay


to the

for

lunch

again.
structures structures of the described called exchanges above, overall within a

addition are also that conversation.

intermediate higher the level totality

some

organisations specific

organise

Schegloff conversations called recognition telephone caller an that opening occur.

(1972) occur section

identifies at in the which the the the

a beginning

sequence of the

in

telephone conversation

identification, opening first call. topic The section slot first

greetings (still in which slot

and in the is

Following comes reason for

conversations) announces his

topic

-52-

privileged prior are

slot turns. related


for

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

throughout serves balanced participants be the done

a call. to so shut that still without

there

conversation. is

conversation something haste.

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,

OK, well such health cheerio

... as etc. etc. a favour

a call

appropriate)

granted, iv) a final

checking exchange

up on a person's of elements: bye,

There Schegloff is the (DUs). They primary is the et. work

have al. of of

been to

recent larger and

attempts discourse Mazeland analysis

to units. (1985) to

apply

the

ideas of to

of this apply units

One example who attempt discourse

Houtkoop conversational

ideas

larger

distinguish who is

in

their

model the of floor

closed and

DUs where open unit following model

there

is there

speaker

holding type

DUs where underway.

a negotiation of

on the the

conversational the analysis

The

description upon the

closed

DUs places

restrictions (Houtkoop and

traditional op. cit.

conversational p. 601):

Mazeland

i)

The primary turn -a

speaker

is

expected unit

to

continue marks

a DU until DU completion

constructional

which

has been produced.


ii) The DU is sequentially DU a recipient should that is be placed the implicative can make. for The to the DR kind (The turn-taking of DU-

contributive recipient) model, units.

according end of the

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

a preference next speaker.

become the

-53-

After operative

a recognizable again, until

end the

of

the next

DU, DU is

the

turn

taking

model

becomes

started.

Another was be described represented

higher

level

model (1988) recursive

based in

on conversational discourse and also talk to

analysis can of about

by Polanyi as of the

which

structure embedding talks

sequencing Polanyi used in

discourse discourse specific

units adjacency interactional the with

various units tasks.

types. which are

accomplish

Although be at odds

two each For

approaches other,

to there at

discourse are areas levels

structure where in the

appear they

to share

common model, Sinclair Houtkoop

ground. both and and

example,

higher a

discourse The both is exist have in the

approaches Coulthard Mazeland This must or at

advocate model is

hierarchical hierarchical

structure. and that that

strictly advocate any real the detail

and Polanyi that either of

an approach differences

hierarchical. in been model. Even appears approaches although theory, it take is not to down the models

suggests occur the in level

way the at the

hierarchies lower levels

defined,

at

the

lowest that

levels is

of not at of

the first

hierarchies apparent. markers speech approach. theory

there Both and act Thus to the

be common ground recognise the are in

importance absent the from discourse that then it if

boundary

such they

markers are present to

conventional analysis speech would act

impossible of such analysis

suggest

were

account

markers, approach two

come to

resemble

conversational Additionally, sequential approach functional can seem is

more closely. stress the importance analysis is more of

the

approaches however the

organisation, formal, but

conversational analysis approach analysis the

the

discourse

and utterance too of approach the rigid to

based. be able On the appear of

The discourse to other to encompass hand

approach incredible

flexibility analysis to that cover

language. does not

the

conversational well defined suggest be more

be sufficiently These approaches

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

Initiation Burton discourse, leaving us suggested the with

should of

be discarded initiation A speaks

above), response.

basic

Conversationally, to what A has

makes sense, taking

B responds The

possibly

the

initiative its heart

himself. the

conversational pair: pair is a pair ordered

analysis consisting and typed first

approach of a first (see part the

has at part

adjacency part. If This we take then

and a second above). second two odds

description

initiation there Perhaps appear. is

as the

and response between not

as the these

part,

a remarkable two

similarity are

descriptions. as might first

the

approaches

so much at

2.3

Computational

Models

of

Discourse

Structure

One model sees as of

of

the

most

ambitious

attempts was that of

to

build

computational Reichman structured moves of what move:

discourse

structure

Reichman

(1985).

discourse a series

(specifically, of functionally

conversational related that six serve types

discourse) conversational as a continuation of

interspersed

among utterances She identifies cit. p. 21)


a claim a claim a claim

has gone before. (Reichman


i) ii) iii)

conversational

op.

presenting explaining challenging

iv) v) vi) This

giving shifting resuming fits

support a topic

to

a claim

a preceding into the

subject previous

of models

discourse of formal units.


onto discourse p. 24). The structures structure can in the

analysis

discourse

analysis of

because boundaries

conversational between higher

moves are level

merely

descriptions

discourse
structure op. cit.

Reichman form space contains. defined in of is

imposes space

a further (Reichman by

a context partially Reichman terms of

context it be

defined then the states context

the that

conversational a discourse it contains.

spaces

-55-

Reichman the formal

then

goes

on to

describe above

a program that she

that

recognizes constitute is though equivalent in a many not as to

structures Reichman's to in and that the

described largely Sinclair there do not acts and

claims

discourse. ways similar

hierarchical Coulthard to work. be

approach approach, anything

detailed, Sinclair

appear in her

Coulthard's

A based Chapter sentential discourse. The

different approach One. plan A major structure to

approach natural work

was taken language

by Allen

(1983)

in

his

planin a of

understanding, by Litman a

described (1985) from theory

Allen's

was extended system of her to work

recognition assumption of

plan-based was that: use of

dialogues are highly

and

the

surface

linguistic (Litman The the op.

phenomena cit. carries typical with

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

attempts meta-plans structure (known but the


A executive deal plans header, which into taken for the The is the next with

cope using

a knowledge maintaining stack). meta-plans


is of

previous

for as a plan idea of

relationships have

been described

new and needs


that

some explanation.
deals are with a sort of that part having of a

meta-plan handling introducing

a plan-about-plans plans. plans, etc. For example

there plans, is

meta-plans

executing A meta-plan of is the

specifying specified as

abandoning which the is

plans

a description act that

meta-plan, to introduce what the

a decomposition the action meta-plan is to be

speech

used

dialogue, and constraints to

effects

which which

specify

specify

minimum

requirements

meta-plan meta-plan HEADER:

be performed. can be specified as: hearer, action) action, plan)

INTRODUCE-PLAN

INTRODUCE-PLAN(speaker, REQUEST(speaker, WANT(hearer, NEXT(action, plan) plan) plan) hearer) hearer,

DECOMPOSITION: EFFECTS:

CONSTRAINTS:

STEP(action, AGENT (action,

(Litman

op.

cit. is

p. 29) the speech act that is used to issue the meta-

REQUEST

-56-

plan, operative action the and able

WANT

is

based and

on the will

assumption therefore

that adopt that to that

the the the be the

hearer plan action as

is a

cojoint in STEP

agent to

be performed. will constraints the stack various plan is

NEXT specifies be the that in next

marked

WANT operator AGENT to The are

action

performed. hearer must

specify

be

perform plan its of

question. to monitor the execution of a task the is

used

including course built each

clarifications a stack by the to the of plan plan at the

and corrections. executing recognizer. below top of it, of all the plans with modifying.

During plans the

a dialogue,

and suspended Within and the

up and maintained meta-plan plan is are to refers is

stack

currently The plan

executing stack that related

maintained

stack. and the

effectively currently the domain Litman's problems

a description active plans in that a

meta-plans meta-plans

dialogue they are

Although very In difficult

approach that it

is

very

interesting not appear to

there have

are

some

does

tackled. work given it to in is

an unrestricted limitless how the

domain, variety plan stack which

how does of plans

the

plan

recognizer

an almost not out clear

and domains? out with its great

Secondly,

carries happen whenever as:

housekeeping regularity is

clear open by

abandoned For

plans

discourse. means of me... In

example, such

a new topic way...

introduced or That

some strategy this not interrupted

Oh, by the the plan

reminds is very to

situation, have at the this

unless current point

first dropped it

speaker is

determined become unless problem suspended

likely

and may never

be effort

re-introduced, to do so. The the

one of then plan

the for

speakers the the stack

makes a determined housekeeping is

when to

remove

from

stack.

2.4

Other

Artificial

Intelligence

Approaches

to

Discourse

Much around structure consists objects. that they the

of

the use

early of

work

in

understanding 1975). objects that of fills A to describe conditions the

discourse frame be is

centred a data It the them

frames

(Minsky of slots a set that

that of These

allows a collection slots

a class of

described. aspects attached of to

may have

must

be met by anything associated with

slot.

Additionally, This

may have

them procedural

information.

-57-

procedural becomes obtain Related Because object, explicitly slot particular the frame filled the

information (this value is to may be contain information

may

specify as an

what

has

to

be

done

if or

the how

slot to

known fill the

IF-ADDED (an to about used as

procedure) IF-NEEDED form many though a

slot together

procedure). frame system. of has will door a an been have of a a

frames frames this

grouped

information can example and explicitly to be

aspects it

observed. describing room system that that (Schank built a has

For door, been is

a frame whether

about or not

a room the in say

mentioned make room has 1977) inferences a door. are

dialogue, on the

able

based

assumption Scripts frames. on three to There be

particular and a natural

Abelson

an

adaptation system were in

of based

Schank ideas. capable are eleven to of an

language

understanding which described (see Rich

Firstly, of describing

semantic all

primitives actions

supposed language. for physical out claims an

basic the object, by using could

semantic

primitives for example, building

(1991) the

introduction transfer of that semantic old. all

subject), MBUILD these be

PTRANS is new

means semantic

information Schank

Thus actions units.

primitives, using language

represented

independent

The second theory way of that

idea

was called of

conceptual

dependency

which in

was such

a a is

how the inferences of

meaning

language from

can be represented sentences in

can be drawn original not built

a way that

independent representations to words in

the are

sentences. out but of the

Conceptual primitives of

dependency corresponding

the

sentence,

combinations up using

sentence

units.

Conceptual plus objects, dependency between modifiers One that example he or


Semantic script meal semantic in

dependencies primitive modifiers resulted what of Schank actions was the she causes.
primitives described restaurant put

can be built conceptual

semantic representing of objects.

primitives actions, Conceptual interactions (nouns),

four

categories and modifiers set of

of

actions in

a small actions

possible objects aiders an actor

called (adverbs) relationship

(verbs),

and picture between

(adjectives). and the event

were

put

into

a data situation

structure such a bus. as The

called taking set

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

when executing scenes: entering,

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

example also for

tables, roles

chairs which were

were

taken

the and

example, The script was that

customers, had entry in the

waiters conditions, restaurant owner

restaurant fact results after the the if that

script. the as customer the The

hungry the of infer

such meal.

fact

restaurant such

had was

advantage to

a description from a

enabled

computer we are then told

program that infer

events went into sat At Intelligence

a story. restaurant

example, had a meal, it

someone that

we can explicitly in

they

down the

at

table this

though

is

not

mentioned. Artificial

time

represented Semantic greater Schank

a step primitives detail in

forward and Schank (1977).

research. described described in in

conceptual (1975)

dependency and scripts

are are

and

Abelson

system

implemented of a story about in the

using about

scripts

could situation, might

build it not have such After

up could

representation then explicitly John his A script (15) It could answer

an everyday that example steak

questions

information story. For

been as: he had

mentioned went meal, system Did also for went to

a story

dinner.

He ordered home.

teriyaki.

he went could

answer for with his

a question meal? stories

such

as:

John pay deal example: to dinner.

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.

make sense the for

Unfortunately, based system

same drawback stories objection that to

as any script fitted the the

script of

stereotype. scripts is given

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

approach. facts that

depends describes

example fact

passenger important the bus as

thanks in

driver. in which

a story of

part

a longer if not

crucially misanthrope

important who had

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

attempted and goals

understand agents

stories involved described types of

plans

story. algorithm

program detecting using and script regarding surface goals writer of of

PAM (Plan and knowledge

Applier

Mechanism) various goals It

processing about interacted. what

goal-based were

existed, used

how goals

how like

they

bottom-up there stories the rather was or work

reasoning nothing issues in

explanations. intentional

However aspects of Also story

relating

linguistic the the characters story

phenomena. in (Litman the

concentrated the goals

than

1985).

There inferred participants 1978).


Sidner both Sidner multiple been are carried interested that

has intentions of

been

some work from

on plan

recognition of actions the

systems actions (Schmidt of et.

that the al.

a description of physical

a sequence

has

carried and Grosz has

out by

research using out (1979). Levesque

with surface work

understanding linguistic on planning to and to

dialogues phenomena integrate have who for and of

intentionally (1985).

carried

perspectives out by in view

Grosz Cohen and

Extensions (1985) theory

planning (1985)

Kautz of

developing language worlds Kautz plans.

a formal as planned

planning Cohen a theory

systems Levesque

behaviour. to develop with

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

questions whether little about sort

raised there has

in is

section such said of

2.1: a thing about

the as this that this a

question Very is some

discourse. the chapter 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

Searle justify has Searle been the recently (1986). given in

brought non-relational argued

Ockham's nature that there

speech real of

structure Searle's

A convincing Holdcroft (1991).

refutation

arguments

Searle be there acts lack no

gives

four theory

main of

reasons

why he feels of

that

there

will

adequate are few

the

structure

discourse. between that

Firstly, speech

interesting op. cit.

sequential ). Secondly,

relationships he feels

(Holdcroft a purpose

conversations in terms of

or point of the

and hence type to

cannot

be explained by Grice. are mere

pragmatic states) language This Finally, is

maxims that what

proposed be rules, that of the is is

Thirdly regularities to et. "the diverge al.

(Searle in from.

appear

caused his

by a behaviour criticism that it

difficult

main

Schegloff he calls is relevant

approach. to not,

Searle

feels that

what what

background" is

a conversation it that is the

determines views relevance, of

and what in the

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

Searle's acts to role

only and

Searle's speech acts

correct play in

only It

have is play a low

a minor quite in level

any acts

structure. role only to of that would the

possible a theory (see second is has not

speech discourse 2.2). and to

to at reject

structure, Holdcroft argues reject to out that of

section point

Searle's

background conversation be to totally

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

speech originally acts of

acts.

However, pointed to

this the

is

in

spite

of

the

fact

possible when in how on the

relationship looking of the at the fact act of of possibility forced This is into a the

speech class

and speech

discourse acts. It

structure is also that

spite one

himself to (see

originally another Chapter has One). force speech

stated

speech

relation act of

a bearing His do not final

description

description for he the is

components of any

illocutionary between stance I find that

allow and hence

relations the that

acts,

rejecting position

discourse

has

a structure.

untenable.

The discourse asked Sinclair compatible has to how

second structure this and with be done model Some speech

question

made

the with

priori speech speech on the

assumption act act face of deal theory Sinclair acts appear theory, theory. it of into to

that but The be work a and to

was compatible

compatibility Coulthard speech to model act fully

affected appears

theory. integrate

However speech proposed

a great act by

discourse Coulthard. describe and

along of the but

the

lines

Sinclair these the

and Coulthard are merely

acts, to

functional acts to in

categories any given the

do little in

constrain of

possible

speech

position relationship relevance each other.

a piece between - what it

discourse. two is adjacent that

When attempting speech acts

describe

we need to utterances

examine to

makes adjacent

relate

Sperber based on the

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

relevance output and input

depend is is

on a ratio number amount

of of of

input contextual processing

to

where

the the

derive

these op.

contextual cit. p. 74)

implications.

and Wilson

and Wilson energy

describe expended.

processing Their theory

time is

as some expanded there

function in are and greater

of

(Sperber with this and

and Wilson approach, Good's

1986). for

However see

grave Good

example of

Gazdar and

Gazdar is based

demolition on Sperber

Sperber and Wilson's

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

relevance. relevance Firstly as having asks acts, the a as preis a

account

conversational

Holdcroft maxim, position

(1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d). relevance (Holdcroft has been 1986a). sentences, suggests a grammatical related. Firstly, different relationship be possible to regarded Holdcroft speech

question goals in that with

relevance

relates

to, analysis

speaker's to discourse except problems the

Conversational same way that units are

a structure structure, sees of

there

is

functionally 1986a, p. 2). there are

Holdcroft because

(Holdcroft

functional realisations

relationships, to the units,

several relevance

syntactic is

and the it

difficult identify their

to

define. the in

Additionally, and answer structure. that

must

separately from

question any given

in

a question-answer

pair

place

He suggests into higher logical order

the

problem topical it must

of

relevance

can be and

sub-divided to a

relevance, goal, very though

relevance be said to

relevance Sperber

that

and Wilson relevance.


into the that structure is at the at

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

theories both onto where

we notice

theories

about set of of

a hierarchical units. opinion mention So it is most the

superimposed lower Both level

a more the to in

primitive difference

main

apparent. use analysis markers. mark disfor of

approaches markers some of

discourse their

structure theories: units

discourse has as

respective lowest uses level

discourse discourse

its

Conversational preferred investigating structure. there that are are The very

analysis seconds the in

discourse pairs, discourse one contact must so

markers there markers draw from the are

to

adjacency role of that of

grounds in this two

discourse is that

conclusion real of points

between

theories

worthy

further

investigation.

Finally, slippery (17) notion. A:

it

must Consider

be the over

realised following in

that

relevance

is pairs:

very

conversational for a couple

We stopped and

Singapore sights,

of

days Road

saw some of Merlion. streets

the

such

as Orchard

and the (18) B:

Singapore's

are

clean

enough

to

eat

off.

-63-

B it

may not but

have

visited about to

Singapore the

and hence of about

had no experience the the streets place. the and

of thus

has heard not A: We

cleanliness ignorant York

made an effort (19)

appear to It reminds streets.


B makes B is familiar was.

went

recently

and visited

Jorvik

centre. (20) B: York narrow


In it refers this to couplet, York to Jorvik that in to It the is be hardly but more centre

was very me of

impressive. Chester with all its quaint old

a statement making

that

is

relevant to B did may be shift not

in

that the know from

perhaps

an attempt Possibly that

conversation what this the is

territory. The conclusion

drawn

relationships a the very key weak to

between sense,

sentences and relevance

may on

only its

involve own is

relevance unlikely

sequential or above should acts

organisation. to in able as attempt of to speech describe acts. about and

meaningful given act theory

desirable purely be

relationships speech closely is where

terms to say

However more this

something pairs

associated the rival to be

such comes common

question/answer its own. between the

theory some

into ground

There analysis striking approaches. (Burton part wholly first and main in of

appears approach similarity The 1981) the

discourse of of both model central is where not the a

and

conversational between version the of core Sinclair

analysis

because

components and cycle Coulthard's as the

modified has the

initiation-response This idea idea of of

structure. from

initiation-response pair, an the pair is first.

dissimilar part then the initiates second of way.

the

an adjacency initiates to

something part course provides is that

(a question a response the

answer), The

difference a formal The third

adjacency

described

question incompatible

assumes with question: proves out act to

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

explanation are the The the case? principal

asks if

the this

implications The implications contender analysis. analysis

for

bleak

this

turns

true. is of the

to

unseat the

speech different analysis

theory approaches we see that

conversational discourse main

and appear

differences

-64-

to

occur

at

lower analysis

level models

as view

both

discourse as a two as it

analysis hierarchy

and of

conversational structures. that appear. Levinson


analysis problem, why that the

discourse of the

But

a closer

examination may not

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

classical not have

an utterance is explained

does by

literal of indirect

force

but

some acts.

other For

a theory

speech

utterance:

(21) would its away

Must

I ask you to

take

out

the

garbage? than a question Levinson which explains A is

be interpreted literal the force. problem is


A:

as a request Concentrating of indirect that


seats

rather

on requests, speech acts using

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

a pre-request, position the

position

1 turns (24), of

(22),

check

that This

conditions appears to

for be

successful because and sets

3 turns ranking

obtain. a request the the

preference refusal,

prefers

acceptance effectively for that over common

dis-prefers up

therefore by checking of doubt in

pre-request pre-conditions are is

an acceptance In What for refusal in stock to cases is

acceptance. requests. grounds goods 1976) there

pre-requests the pre-request 1977).

preferred the most

checked (Labov in

and Fanshel

This (as

may be whether (Sinclair that a

are or

service

encounters

above)

inability

fulfil to

the, request. avoid requests that be a

Levinson

suggests

may be a preference may be taken most by the preferred response, 'The

altogether,

hence something. immediately

pre-request Thus followed (26) (27) In this the

as a hint form e. g. would

someone wants pre-request

Do you have Here you are

Independent'?

(Provides). can be phrased in order to get

way position

1 pre-requests

-65-

directly form arrived of at

to

position

4. that

Brown

and

Levinson a position

(1979) 4

note response

another to be

pre-request directly:

enables

(28) (29) This is

I don't No I'm

suppose afraid of

you have not.

this

in

black?

an example Levinson strategy

what

Brown

and Levinson

call op.

interactional cit. the p. 363) response speech request a prethe

pessimism. that can acts there request intermediate Careful account show aspects (Levinson
One conversational acts and of

goes of

on to

suggest

(Levinson

this

'loading' explains that

a pre-request the for problem type for

so that of of

be reached because, is

directly he suggests,

indirect indirect from

each strategy

an appropriate directly stages. to

underlying the response

going going

without

through

He suggests of

that: this conversationally of the speech most quite acts based will

comparison with that of it the

standard

accounts of

renders

many act

problematic illusory.

indirect op. cit.


most

speech p. 364)
interesting is the

issues

the

and attempt to

challenging explain indirect

aspects

of speech

analysis this in needs some

further detail how

investigation. a four-turn can be

Levinson sequence into such the

(op. as first a

cit. pre-

described request fourth a fourth speech speech seconds

before turns turn acts acts to the (see

a request, above) with

compacted turn suggests way. talking pair.

and

the

first then

effectively that Additionally about all

inviting indirect indirect dis-preferred

response. might were first be

Levinson explained in

this

hinted part

at of

when

an adjacency

Taking indirect the the

the

compacted act given that

four-turn cannot

sequence

first, away in

if

there this

is

an

speech

be explained is at best

way then Consider

explanation class (30): (31): (32): of Its I'll

by Levinson speech heavily you a lift. acts this

incomplete. for

indirect snowing give

known as hints, evening.

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

interpretation based around

some

explanation sort of

a pre-request

some

-66-

preparatory that the if request (33): The that Social then the

structure. hint is Yes, is

The either to

problem ignored follow.

with or

a hint not

as

a pre-request as such to

is then (30):

perceived the

unlikely indeed. either a request would to make which

Consider

response

respondent it is

ignores rather almost he the

the than

implied

request

or of the If

fails the

to

see

a statement forbid

obvious. from are then indirect analysis no a

convention going on

certainly directly. can

speaker there

request request

circumstances hint speech approach cannot act is

under be that the

be made

directly, of

called throws following:

a pre-request. doubt on the

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

a pre-request although utterance because that suggests the that in not is

- request exactly not only polite

be acceptable, but does not

whereas make sense a prior This

impolite, speech carry

pragmatically agreement analysis of the

the

indirect would

act

pre-supposes the action.

hearer politeness the

out as the

as well plays are

relative

statuses part prior, in

participants why indirect

discourse acts

an important Additionally the

unravelling mutual appears acts. Another to be uniform

speech of

used.

knowledge to play

and any form an important

contract in

between of

participants speech

part

a theory

indirect

point

about

pre-sequences for example of to it

is

that is not

they clear

do not that a

appear preIt for A's

phenomena, serves the

announcement does collapse not for into

same sort appear

function the that

as a pre-request. same B might potential pre-empt

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

use does form the

not

even

appear

to This

bear only is

any relationship serves to re-inforce

to

the the as a act act of

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

observations. are are compatible, not.

Although

discourse

analysis analysis because analysis, to the explain

conversational this arises

However, acts it is in

speech because speech

conversational insufficient Furthermore,

argument types used themselves of mere We a of in

simply

acts. analysis

categories are in

(pre-sequences) to rather be more than

and in conclude discourse other explicitly

appear

observations

discourse, that that in

a fundamental analysis, with the

component. we don't act of have

conversational is incompatible come into

speech

theory. discourse

Several without of these being is

aspects

theories the that or most

mentioned. Is it of that that

Perhaps the case

interesting

politeness. the

conversational is it perhaps

analysis that and there

explains are

phenomenon maxims results The no mention problem the that of

politeness, are are of driving being the

politeness the analysis?

the

conversation observed in seems analysis its ugly head

producing

conversational important, approach. but Finally, at

status in the

speakers

gets the some of suggests

conversational also rears

context

when looking Levinson that someone

examples. a pre-request however the its may be taken use is to as a some hint extent

wants

something, consider 'The

governed (38) (39) Lets

by context, A:

example:

Do you have you are. instead then

Independent'?

B: Here that

(provides) the conversation to get takes the rotary place in a large

suppose

DIY superstore, (40) (41)

we are

likely

following blade

sequence: cutters?

A: Do you have B: They're in

any replacement the gardening

section

next

to

the

pesticides.
B is only likely to fulfil the request if a further request is

made.

e. g. (42) A: Could you show me where


of that the co-operative a plan-based

exactly?
principle model (similar of Grice. to the Could one

This it

is be

an example the case

-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

on here? explain all is

pre-request It it is

to

adequately because 3 and Furthermore at step two if

possibilities. ignored,

does

not the not

a hint the it as as in to

usually are

steps out. stops no are

4 of

pre-request does the why explain example certain

sequence why given types the above. of

sequence It also

explanation used, such as

indirect

the

formula:

(43) described do pose

Must above. some

I ask you to However questions act


also

X? are not interesting, adequately and they covered by

pre-sequences that are

traditional
AI plan of the

speech
models may

theory.
have something in action to contribute One) as describes Allen's one Could

recognition Gricean model

system pragmatic do more than

(mentioned maxims just in this?

Chapter (be

informative).

a plan

It adequate important recognising theory speech levels has little

is

apparent of

from speech

this acts, in of

study that

that

in

order

to

have

an is in act of

theory and must the

discourse with structure the structure. act it. in

structure However speech

be studied

conjunction

importance versa, with

discourse also to

and vice act of theory the or from act

we must respect

recognise

limitations At

discourse speech discourse

higher

descriptive nothing this study to

hierarchy, do with that

theory It

apparently is also with

structure. is

evident speech in has both

discourse there are

analysis several

compatible

theory,

although Finally,

unanswered analysis,

questions although it is have

theories.

conversational into it failed of be has to

provided

us with weak speech act

many insights and although has

discourse been do so.

structure alleged to

theoretically undermined Several and only

theory

questions some of

and lines these will

investigation explored to set the in

have the

been next

opened few speech for

chapters. act them verbs

Chapter in order to

Three to build

describes

an attempt

re-examine of primitives acts.

find

a more plausible form of

and also

a logical

speech

-69-

3.

The Deconstruction

of

Speech

Act

Verbs

3.1

Introduction

In theories analysis Having build posed.

Chapter of and examined

One

I described acts and in

some of Chapter

the

more at

traditional discourse theory. to

speech its

Two looked to is speech to

possible existing that to take will

relationship theories hopefully acts it

act

now time

attempt the point

a new theory I intend in

answer as the speech different verbs is

many of

problems for my at

speech to

starting act verbs

new theory, least provide

particular

examine

as they act

a means of account I of will speech all to speech 1.6 It is of to

categorising speech a large verbs, the act

speech given on this by

types.

An interesting (1987), description don't many agree similarities of section acts. first
is

Wierzbicka for though my I have my own

and

extent simply

draw

work even

act of

because, they to

with

descriptions

do at take

least in

the act

approach

I intend

description In of speech The


speech the and does carefully direction only utterance world; propositional fit to and relate add the four acts possibility units not of

verbs. seven to the problems with in Searle's theory

I listed now time was that


sentential a structural In any

examine basis
in nature

these for

more detail. account


not allow

point
largely of discourse. for his fit

Searle's
and does

of
for acts

relationship to make clear

between why we

speech

order relational

Searle's to talks are four where affairs to

theory examine about and the the the of act we the the

allow what of

aspects Firstly, that

need he

theory 1.3)

states. stating of fit:

(section directions independently where of the

there

possible fits an

word-to-world state is the of

existing the illocution; world

in fit

world-to-word, content null to

altered double to allow

direction a speech perhaps where act within problematic be and a type what

direction that of relates is it

of

fit. has

If

we are

something

occurred as

previously, word-to-context speech

should propositional context. definition function

a direction content

fit

such to

a previous vague and a speech

But

this

a rather

somewhat act content to

because operating

only

considers the

of that

between

propositional

-70-

propositional sense plays this in which

content the

represents context (both speech in a

in

the

world.

However, and

there

is

linguistic act which

non-linguistic) An account of

an important is I'm given not

role

in

recognition. he states: of

by Gazdar(1981) claiming a theory of the that of

theory

speech but

acts only of theory.

constitutes that

utterance

sequencing

an account acts op. with how is cit.

recognition

and interpretation of such a

speech (Gazdar The problem of the accept

a necessary p. 65) the word

component

and world interacts especially

idea with

is

that other

it

gives speech when as

no acts we

account within must different (1) which not for

a speech This

act is

discourse. that

problematical

one surface acts. Gazdar

form uses

can be interpreted as an example:

several

speech You will

go home tomorrow. as a question, a prediction, an order but

may be interpreted example

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

need why that

account, act can

incompatible another of the act. it

one

there purpose the

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

point then hinting Because

question sense the

illocutionary between with degree the of it

question another. I also

relationship problem with remark scale. as permit Van der I the

illocutionary strength not out

have point,

no

arguments except to

illocutionary be that the the sort regarded certain

that have

should

necessarily

as speech

a acts

linear such and could an act. n-

pointed readily (1985)

previously fit into

do not Veken be

tableaux degree of

given of

by

Searle

and

therefore as some the

strength upon speech

perhaps tuple of

better

viewed that

computation of the

factors

determine

strength

The achievement. extra-linguistic

third

component The mode of means of

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

a speech illocutionary authority achievement. that it

act

a mode is

achievement out from that of

force. it is

A command this position testify the to be

carried of authority

a position is the mode the under of to be

of of

and

Similarly asserting appears doing When that

has truth important such as

as mode of

achievement while

fact oath. speech

is

something _or

Authority acts, different. something While or with to ask the be but

an explanation seems have they

something someone they hold

testifying they

somewhat sworn on

testifies, to be sacred

previously will such tell

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

as make is oath. acts

that of being

something under

the I

case

achievement the relationship as well testify to

am going and surface category

between as their as call

speech

discourse forms, of cannot

structure, will act

relationship forming a formal forms speech significantly two to say that acts

to

consider that use that testifying a what I intend

a special speech count act. as

We

example the way

special we

indirect can with not

testifying, as the request. surface both they their

such alter

Furthermore, form; testified carry on consider that

does situation they are in be

where about

individuals is the truth,

have then of

a conversation would under

a normal

manner. from of this being terms of this, as is

A transcript one that the of I special where the case

conversation party someone materially which acts speech they such acts. was is

indistinguishable The to point

neither fact does forms) that not in

oath.

testifying alter say the something.

something way Because be treated (in

actual

surface argue

that as

speech formal

as testify

should

cases,

However are, effect it is upon


Berry speaker speaker and being the and or

before worth speech


(1982) hearer hearer where

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

relationships firstly over in the when the position

between either other, of that

authority: of or be authority is

secondly the position

either knower. authority

hearer realised

primary of

must

straight upon the

away

change

depending

subject.

-72-

For still B

example, give still an has The knower

even order certain same is

if

A has such rights as:

institutional Kindly and to to the be can remove order

authority your A not of

over hand to from

B,

B could my knee! those The matter knower. is

violate knower. subject

rights. primary of For the

applies assumed

position an authority at

primary on the be

conversation. anyone be position by the

Everyone who primary of the is

can relating knower

sometime their

a primary

example, to the

personal respect to knower the

experiences that are subject. to

assumed Thus extent

with and

authority subject

primary of

some

determined

matter

conversation.

Going I am

back

to

formal to

speech

acts: those

by making speech are

this acts

distinction that shape up I

attempting forms

distinguish those are

surface with

and determine from those that Searle's these

that not. of

integrally exactly act verbs

bound what

discourse

To explain speech

mean by this; declaratives: pre-determined would denote speech sentence also speech whereas
The have no

consider very text, often for argue

class involve baptise

called using No-one going hand different testify certain types to the

ritualised

ceremonies

example: that these

or excommunicate. act verbs are other

seriously separate act verbs: types.

speech

grammatical question Furthermore, surface nothing

structures. and assert appear

On the to

map onto such is as

a speech form. to

act

verb

has act

no distinct verbs have do.


point

The point distinct

that

do with

sentential

others
second relational

is

that to

certain them,

speech again discourse

act consider:

verbs

appear baptise

to or

element There is

excommunicate. these and any say. like can

no possible act in there in the the are

relationship is speech formal do Just as appear what for act offer

between and that acts relate or are

other However, to include within

way a set

there of of and

acceptance, I would

verbs speech to are

category discourse be resign. clearer to be

which to not those formal other

appear

normal might

acts. speech

An example acts will that I

formal

become consider

I move

on to the

define of

speech acts.

acts

outside

class

Going from different rules that

back

to

the but

idea the

of

testifying: component change structure. the

clearly that surface When I

it

is makes form

different testify or the that

asserting, from

added

assert

does not

govern

discourse

testify

-73-

something (assuming questions I can also

is that

true, it is

I am still they have that

obeying guide

Grice's

pragmatic I still to

maxims answer requests. in is I any known speak the or speech There a preutter

conversation). range of responses but

and still in to that This certain

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

by speaking testifying, by testifying, act these and

indirectly, whether or

not

means that speech For

I am not grammatical I argue

altering structure that cases. use people

between surface as testify other of form.

reasons,

should speech acts

be treated such only

as separate that specific The to

as baptise if very

ordained those speech

words

and that

do we successfully similar of the to baptise

achieve have

baptism. no role

declarative play acts further.


a are of mode of of no

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

Although achievement, significance acts.

extent

speech the

that

considering

relational

aspect

speech

The propositional conditions problem be of

fourth

component content

of

illocutionary

force

is

the

condition(s). in their they own right are

Propositional to help us

content solve the thus include that to the

do

nothing

context, further. such taken In type fifth and that

however

significant content

and should conditions something that put has yet upon

considered

Propositional fact or that report they

constraints has take speech already place. act

as the place, other by the

I cannot

predict

on something are constraints itself. force as the the fact promise.

words,

propositional of

content

The conditions, presupposes greatly provide illustrate could

component include the the with

illocutionary things

are that

preparatory promising I propose as they require. to can To We

such

speaker

can fulfil of preparatory

extend us

category just the

conditions that consider a want, hearer as part in to of we

relational

link

just regard to

how this that hearer this fulfilling

can be achieved,

a request. that (do) P.

as communicating that he wants

speaker If overall to we

communicates then context, consider

the

communicated the

want

the

then

request

can be seen

as responding

-74-

that original acts

want.

In request,

this

way a relational and the via the response context.

link to The that

is

set

up

between and the

the two

request of two

are

related and the

notion between will

"preparatory speech in acts this

conditions" via

possible is

relationship that

a common context chapters.


sixth conditions. levels. idea of

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

force should worth be

consists examined out performatives. where

of at that

Sincerity Firstly, came from

different original in terms

pointing of

an examination (Austin

misinvocations, misapplications, the manner

1962, p. 17) where and chose it

the but

may not applied applied

exist, in

exists misexecutions, to apply acts, speech can

purported, However Searle

incorrectly. conditions more in

the and act use acts are

sincerity to lead

to

conventional act theory. of to

speech If

seems is

to to

a gap be

speech

supposed then surely for if

a total

explanation apply

how we all

sincerity apply to lies.

conditions Although I feel

speech conditions

sincerity that they for can 1983

important to other

performative acts. In for

acts, fact acts maxims

are Searle's be

misapplied idea of by Chapter

speech

an explanation such (see as assert

sincerity application Six).

conditions of Gricean

furnished also

Leech

and

The capable without the

explanation of it including violating of

of

speech

acts

that of of

I will someone the

propose telling

will a

be lie of

the

possibility

a requirement speech that hearer acts. P is believe of

one of a lie

constituents involves that

description

Telling true that

someone the

knowing intention The strength that a

or believing that final of the 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

component the "degree

illocutionary strength" Searle together request. having

can be measured illustrate with beg this

on a linear point: request a stronger and testify condition

The examples often condition with

used by paired than testify the

and beg are sincerity are than paired assert.

having assert sincerity

Similarly a stronger

However

-75-

facts those

that that In

make beg make testify

"stronger" stronger examine

than than the the

request assert. of

are

different

from

attempting acts, I have force

to

question seven the

relations

between of

speech

examined and have

constituent following act that

components conclusions: could a be construed request to

illocutionary i)

come to of in

The illocutionary in a relational

point way,

a speech the sense

for elicit

example

can be seen as an attempt from the hearer. may be used via

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

a context. I intend speech same acts to that build upon

and the present problem to

ones, of the

to

a new theory while at

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

The 1.6 on concerns one

criticism rigidity problems,

approach. that some

already

of

namely either too

components simplistic,

illocutionary particular conditions. illocutionary scale. further sentential expressed out such a as by I have the

force mode

are of

amorphous and the

achievement the surely some speech their this of

propositional of strength on a simple is are is to units level a one of units as an level to below. so

Additionally, point already is that cannot given the

degree

be measured reasons acts

why this presented

problem in

essentially proposition level rules

basis,

since and

content restriction levels

a sentence, explanation

possible discourse

lower or

discourse, such as

markers, I more

higher cited

conversational of of a speech discourse I third act

exchanges. that than will is are: describe

originally compatible acts in too

argue a higher

example unit Searle's

with

speech argue

according more much detail emphasis This in took

description. My entailment form in the

criticism relations semantic Austin

was that between tableaux himself

was placed an and

on

speech

acts.

extreme Van too der much I feel

presented had warned of The acts is

Searle

Veken(1985). reliance this and the has upon

against speech problem that it

placing acts, with falls

the

entailment to be sound

relations advice. speech

and

proved of

entailment down for

notion

primitive

-76-

certain class,

speech and is

acts, almost and

such absent

as permit in

in

the

case of

of

the

directive namely either way

two classes This

speech

acts, that

expressives expressives to other

declaratives. should acts,

suggests in

and declaratives types of speech

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

circumstances, speech analysis speech acts

speech addressed. us as with

preferred

over

Currently, a better account else that that able be able which maxims. fifth criticism in to in is

conversational of that to in be why indirect

appears acts theory must way to exist of be

provide (albeit indirect able to

something acts

theory) taken

and

any

speech challenge has hope are been to

seriously, more theory convincing I of

account so to far. provide

a far In the

than

Searle I acts uses

am about why of indirect

present, speech and

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

although integrate an attempt

he it

politeness theory. indirect sixth

passing, will acts. of the

made

My theory speech criticism of abstraction". us with

include

politeness

existing If speech

theory act of into which the an

concerns theory ways is in

what correct, which problem. language act

"levels must

provide This

an

account us in of

we

language. merely is can surely only

however

leads of ways

immediate we can If in use

a description an tell any how, atomistic us that

account

language. sentences

speech this way

we may use as to

or acts

without or

account in

how we put context speech act much accounts

several within using about of a an the language

speech particular

together, language surface of to

a particular the

community, form, then which it

we deliver is what saying

appropriate performance set out

nothing

language explain. What

is

pragmatic

speech the relations what

act

theory between

is

attempting

to and

achieve an utterance, This

is

to and

describe further

a proposition that utterance

with

intentions

was made.

implies

-77-

that derived able

it

must from

be the

able

to

say

something and the how

about intentions. we get

how the

utterance it must

is be

proposition something

Hence from a

to

say as

about to

proposition

expressed

a thought in level doing

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

However intermediate original cannot be be thought

description, and the and it final isn't

between a speech it that

a thought form of

therefore, to the say

some the

description The other traditional

between grouped utterance says Harnish i. e. I how

two. the

proposition force speech

with is

components from this.

illocutionary traditional

produced about

nothing

how this say is

happens something

and

what

is the

involved. reverse In

(1979) a speech to

however act

about from

process, my theory

extracted that this before of

an utterance. is be some used the to final

intend

assume level

a priori and that

there can

intermediate frame utterance, precisely there is to resee the

descriptive utterance. we put what no take

In together

other some

words, form

producing that

description I freely for speech of this. act

expresses that

we want psychological a look the what

to

say.

Although

acknowledge Before verbs, it

justification at some seven will be specific

proceeding is force worth to

examining exactly

components left.

illocutionary

1. My

Illocutionary description of the of an act

Point. will what in

This include the

is

the

point

or

purpose

of which

the

act. is a by the

a "presumed is have setting no real

effect" out to

description uttering notion

speaker I point.

achieve to

question.

objections

illocutionary

2. view be

The

degree this

of

strength lie to In

of as think other

the

illocutionary on as it not than the be rather a linear an

point. scale, area

reject it in a

the might an multito acts n-

that more

should

a point of it

appropriate

adjacent is very be

space

hypercube. measure. one act

words it would

much

dimensional think could The only of be

Hence as being of as

usually another. same

appropriate But of two

"stronger" broadly would

thought linear

having

sort

purpose. such as a

relationships

trivial,

-78-

comparison (2) and (3)

between: I am angry.

1 am very,

very

angry.

3. do

The away

Mode with

of

achievement. Any be

This acts

is that

a component include in acts, ritual, and all his

that a so

I called

propose mode or

to of can are an rite

completely. can either as with

achievement be classified

explained speech of formal "Satan

an alternative i. e., such those as

way

"formal" sort

that swearing the

associated oath, leading or up

some

parties to

renouncing

works"

baptism.

4. in

Propositional the wash".

Content

Conditions. of

Most predict

of

these for

will

"come out I will that content I

In my description that a future be built fact my exactly that will

example, the fact

include can only condition to

components predict will the because of

include

by necessity, the

event, into the

hence

propositional I will for the will also law of

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

Conditions. enhanced but will also

The notion and will

of

a preparatory be

condition to

not "cognitive

restricted states".

presuppositions

include

6. hence of

Sincerity by

Conditions. the conditions. should in explain have the

propose

to

drop

these the

completely, of the

and

implication

seventh I

component, have no for

degree to speech acts. For

strength idea that but use when

the

sincerity conditions have no maxims

objections "formal" speech conditions.

sincerity they

remain

acts, We can

place to

communicative sincerity evidence of for quality

pragmatic asserting, have sincerity to say to

example And to exhorts

we should appeal conditions. only for, what then to

what

we assert. quantity that

we only derive us

maxims If

and

we already to appears be

have true to be

a maxim what need

we believe there

and no

we have to have

adequate sincerity

evidence conditions.

-79-

3.2

Speech

Acts

As Schemas

My definition needs to have

of thought

a speech about act, It

act

will

encompass to

what

the

speaker

before (very will

deciding roughly, also

make an the the

utterance

communicating necessary what describe make making have order form is to to

that

speech

preconditions action, it order i. e. will to after it needs will in

make an act). be communicated things the that

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

communicating it the utter a set of

speech that the most of


in of

act. the

to

strategies act into

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

illustrate a very in order

these

parts For

rough to me to that

description make an

some

common

speech I or have to

example, that

assertion, that

presumably true, to The In the the of the most various in

evidence the it hearer is

leads

believe true.

P may be also

believe that

P is of the the I

I may to that will the

want

believe action

something of

is

interest belief effect to

hearer. true.

consist something, accept that enable assertion. surface maxims way. My the

communicating I hope true, may that but not

P is be

asserting will

that for type by

hearer possibility

P as

have

be prepared this given decide do this with on

hearer me to

believe the I

P and

knowledge hearer to

will my

decode

responses have to I interact be based

Finally, form that for

on the using the

appropriate pragmatic a certain such as

my assertion. me to will also

direct

hearer

choice

considerations

politeness.

In a speech what the

the act

remainder description needs of

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

descriptions order to for the make

speaker type

particular speech act is act

speech I will

schemas is that

several speech to the of

types. to

supposed

achieve, the

communicating some descriptions

hearer. what the of the

Additionally, speaker needs

schema will know in the the order

contain to

to to

successfully I will form develop in

interpret the idea Six.

possible strategies

responses to produce

speech correct

act. surface

Chapter

-80-

Schemas have in of Artificial preconditions They the speech

already

been used models, are

to

represent

speech consist speech which is

acts, of act the

and a set to effect be

Intelligence that will act also is

and generally for the

necessary

uttered. that they to

include presumed which

an effect, to have

on the

hearer. speech

Finally, act is some examine speech

may include be realised knowledge and then

a body,

may specify or may and hearer.

how the perhaps I will of

as an utterance, of speaker give

describe first other

mutual assert, act

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

Harnish. act. using describes

Van

their

primitive Intelligence

assertive models Allen

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

MB(H, S, (want act of speaker knows true. and P.

speaker P is hearer that the the for. Smith

speech that

speaker body

both of this

The

representation this speech chapter) act Holdcroft this schema

communicative speaker and

presumption hearer both

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

know is that from

changed within a not

believe

schema includes context the speaker to P.

particular committed to

discourse P to being

changes

being

committed

-81-

Bach

and Harnish in

(op. cit) e, the the


who

describe S asserts that

assert that P and that

as: P iff S expresses:

uttering i) ii)

belief intention
has

H believe
assert analysed is

that

P. "
(op. of her

Another cit.

author

described

Wierzbicka a large totally the merit number with

p. 321). act the of it I shall the

Wierzbicka verbs and

"semantically" although that is not I she do not uses

speech analysis of each

agree to

description verbs also

encapsulate to from

meaning further

sufficiently all that employ. the far

interesting removed However schemas given

study, that

is

the

description looking need to at be

eventually description,

before above

Wierzbicka's explained First (above) preconditions, is for is that inform has in

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

INFORM(S, effects is itself The

a body.

problem and

a speech interpretation

ruled to

a primitive. that it is verb

a representation such For my as ratter description relates

an utterance speak I to of will the would use act

neutral appropriate. illustrate not going other force. preparatory to assert in

perhaps speak in

that itself on parts Firstly any of

it carry

merely any it

of

uttering force. to of

components is

illocutionary attempting components preconditions

further the Allen the

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

appear that that P spirit P as: is in

to

be

conditions, that instead to P, of

questionable believe in about

order true. of an

or

Perhaps assertion bel(H the that as

be more belief in making P. this The is

the

represent In believe knows cannot it when has

speaker's words, I believe true, into

want(S I want is

bel(S hearer the the

P))). to

an assertion, effect again that is (Allen defended used of assert

hearer hearer because

P is forced

questionable P is was it for, true fully because Allen point, should

believing that it but was the is

simply aware it of was

asserted his

this

formulating for the

schema, that it to

adequate The assert, know that

purposes to

(1987)). i. e. come for to

effects the

appear illocutionary true.

relate point

illocutionary that the hearer

P is

-82-

This in terms i)

discussion of The is a three

has component

led

us parts:

to

a description

of

a speech

act

communicative to be provided that directed P.

part in the at

which

specifies

what For

information it make is an

the

utterance. speaker the is

assert to

statement

going with

utterance content

hearer

propositional

ii)

The preconditions know, speech want act.


which

- 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

The select that form refer

communicative the it will to is be). as correct not

part

provides form thing

information (however that are which the utterance here ... can also that and affect it

that

will

be be the that

used stressed surface I in

to

surface only

should what of states

the The

determines a set

preconditions states", making claiming I believe

shall the the

"cognitive before am not to:

should that this

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

therefore, the that eventual will be of to

preconditions but come this on to is

surface explored indirect as a

utterance, when The I

is

something the

fully acts. of

consider the act.

problem desires

effect the

what

speaker

happen

uttering

speech

At definition

this of

point assert of X

it in

is

perhaps light given

useful of the

to

look

at

Wierzbicka's

the

above

description. (op. cit. p. 321) is

The meaning 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) I say:

assert

by Wierzbicka

I imagine

some people this people is

would true.

say this

is

not

true.

I can say that I assume that 1 say this

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

possible bel(S [Ex: words are

to

translate -P)])

2)

as

bel(x

in that

other

I am stating some people

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

condition: say that this is true. as

be represented P) or bel(S discussion bel(H P) ). the it people as: P))) bel(S

simply poss (P) )

above, P)))

this which

might could

be more accurate be represented

as: as:

issue to

with represent

fourth as:

of

Wierzbicka's

conditions

and prefer

I assume that which is bel(S


In other will

may believe

that

it

is

true.

represented poss(bel(H
words believe that

speaker P. If will

believes we leave have to

that

it

is

possible original

that condition true" some

the

hearer "I it will

Wierzbicka's believe that that I

assume contradicts say I

people the it is

it

is

then people

previous not true. I [Ex:

condition The to final say

imagine is: is

that this

condition what I know

say

because

want bel(S

true.

want(S

INFORM(H

x)]))

This is

serves true. It to "start

as the is of

reason

why the a great

speaker

wants

to of

assert why the such

that speaker as

course P,

simplification

may wish simply ultimately, that

assert off" the

which

may be for but to inform is

many reasons, whatever the that of

to is,

a conversation, speaker wants

reason

hearer that

something this simply that if P

he believes a circular he wants it with

in.

Of course, definition,

there that

a danger speaker it

becomes because

the

asserts

to

assert the other

that

P.

However

makes more sense of speech act,

we compare For

(Searlean) to make a or get be:

categories directive the hearer

act. the

example, wants this


want

when to

about

speech to

speaker Hence

know something might


S P))

do something.

condition
(S INFORM(H

then

or want In the (S do (H P)) of . it might P))). be:

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-

complex relatively preconditions assert was

statements simple

that description

need by solely

further Allen of the had

explanation above. fact to that of that believe appear the

given Previously, if I or to hearer wanted know be to that

the our to P

consisted P was But about true now the then

that true.

I merely some

we have likely

forms

saying the

something assertion.

response

Wierzbicka's outline is utterance

first form totally

statement used new. to by

was Allen,

entirely however 2) says

consistent her that will asserting more second if

with

the

statement I not assert agree that P

something then This

Statement that

something with in me. the

I is

have not

expect

some people for P but (or its

a necessary or

precondition that P) of is

sense the the

that hearer idea

knowing to

believing that

accurately, fits in for if I P

wanting with

believe above in will with

purpose the

outlined don't people me to fit

preparing In me when of to the the

speaker words that

responses know then 2) as it does that will not

that some

expectations. with sense

other I assert

disagree make

help constrain them. part

readily

responses. utterance so

Hence much

possible Because of

responses this I of in 4) prefer feel

explain

that 3)

2) is and

is in so

an

important with not the

constituent the need effect

of

a description by Allen

assert. his is

keeping should of

precondition much of further the

given

schema a modified

explanation. act. I

version that

speech

the

interpretation

bel(S bel(H because asserts explanation not but clear I will


Putting consisting Action:

poss (bel (H P))) P) it that is absurd the to

to

suggest

that

simply believe that

because P. 5)

speaker is it an is

P that of

hearer speaker is

has to

why the

made the necessary

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:

1) bel(S 2) +bel(S 3) bel(S


4) want(S P)

[Ex: P)

bel(x

-P)])

poss (bel (H P)) )


INFORM(H [Ex: bel(S x)]))

Presumed

Effect:

bel(H

-85-

Note

that

I effect

have is

called what the

the

effect speaker by that The

the hopes the P is

"presumed to achieve would be

effect". by for this that responses stealing approach dispreferred the

The speech him is P to not or to the to

presumed act. The

preferred that response P already. act, then ground which

response he believes possible. If

hearer true.

acknowledge the may a only know speech

However, believe

hearer

may not the a long

we can

formalise gone

possible way analysis and to

we will from talks the in

have

theoretical discourse, responses. The states relationship the states speaker act. In

conversational terms of preferred

description throws of some speech

of light acts issues in

the

speech

act major

in

terms

of

cognitive the

on two to of

problems: structure,

firstly and The

discourse speech to the those make likely act

secondly, cognitive

representational represented to the accurately case of P, of

theory. assertion responses are that

order predict

an

enable to the

the speech of P,

assert, and

responses statement

acceptance P was

challenging known. In five terms the

a possible

already

remainder act to verbs the

of from above some

this

chapter of the of I

shall Searlean assert. to

describe

four

or in many next

speech similar

each

categories There are in the

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

preconditions explain take the assert

cognitive

relationships as an example;

speech preconditions

being the the for it

necessary hearer hearer this. is not may may Assert very In to in

preconditions react not is to

also

states For the

utterance. that P and

believe not a very

good in

example relational of after.

strongly other constrain Chapter

cohesive words what Four that the

speech very will

acts. little raise states", the

utterance come the relate

assertion issues of act the that hearer.

must are

Other existence speech by

possible to any

"universal also allow

i. e. to

states predict

speaker

possible

responses

A simple

-86-

example which to the


In description by will in which not

of the

this

may be that issues the

the

hearer

may not e. g. the

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

The method description are style as involved which stated I

utterance complete, of be I the

because surface the show the

generation to

including the only form, and thesis.

consider previously, in the

beyond hope to

However, the action some be

does but this

specified of the

schema states in

affect or Six. will the act may be

so do will

cognitive further

preconditions,

explored

Chapter Six of

Chapter acts that and to in the that explain and terms

include descriptions descriptions some

an explanation given are not above. rigidly

of It

indirect will cast it will of also in

speech show stone, attempt surface logic" will of also surface will be

speech there

variation. maxims to affect

Additionally the a sort generation of

how pragmatic will attempt modal and the

forms, based consider forms. based

evolve deontic

"pragmatic It

on epistemic, politeness Much of

and

operators. on the generation speech

its

effects of

explanation maxims.

indirect

acts

on politeness

Finally describe epistemic been the

a note speech

on the acts

operators and the want

used syntax

in

the used.

next I Belief and

section have logic

to used has

operators

such

as bel,

and know. Existential

formalised have

by Konolige been used

(1985). in

universal with modal logic

quantifiers traditional operators see

certain I have

places also

along used to the modal

propositional poss and necc. (1981)


also 0 for that is

operators. For a simple

introduction (1968).
the

McCawley
I have

and Hughes
used deontic

and Cresswell
operators p for in

cognitive and for f to

state denote

descriptions, something of logic deontic further

obligation, (see

permission (1971) use of

forbidden I Chapter will

Hilpinen the

a description and deontic

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-

bel(S necc(P) These

P)

means means

that that it

the is

speaker

believes the

that case

P. that P.

necessarily

operators

may be

nested:

necc(bel A left off


Action SPEAK(S

(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

P. Quantifiers their scope, [Ex: I will

have e. g., P)]

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

cit. way them as

p. 183) assert,

state

that

claim there

treated

however to it is the be is

significant puts act and given say: X

differences forward because some the

between view, speaker has like in

that

need but a claim back up are:

explored. a more

assert, making to

expecting claim. The

(presumably) by Wierzbicka

evidence (op. cit.

p. 324)

imagine think think right. say it this is can

that that that I I

some have can

people good cause

will reason people

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

a claim, that the

speaker knows

evidence some

support which

speaker

Q from

-88-

inferred speaker following

that believes

P.

A slightly that form: P can

weaker be inferred

case

of from

this Q.

would This

be

that

the the

suggests

logical

bel(S 4) of that people statement of the is

[EQ:

know(S of

Q) & bel(S speaker

(Q ->P))]) believes will the 2) happen hearer as a result to believe some a

a statement a claim.

what

making

In making however that

a claim from P.

I want condition

P will will of desire

be true, not the to as: P))


claim SPEAK(S

I know that

believe

Hence 4) can be looked effect believe bel(H that P). 5) is true

upon as a statement

perlocutionary make the hearer

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) &

[EQ: know(S bel(S

(Q -> P))])

3) want (S bel (H P) ) Presumed Effect: bel(H P)

One

of

the to

main

differences the to that

with claim. speaker the used

assert Because that the

is of

the

existence 1) be or it

of

the will

evidence come as

support

condition may Q Q.

no surprise 2) that means the

claim

disputed. even the

Condition inference

hearer to

may dispute P from

speaker

derive

3.3.2

Assure

Searle

and Van der

Veken

(op.

cit.

p. 184)

describe

assure

as:

asserting convincing content in

with the the

the hearer world of of

perlocutionary the the truth utterance. of the

intention propositional

of

Wierzbicka of "worry"

states from with reports truth or the

that mind

assure of the

is

also

concerned Assuring with assure confirm, means

with is

the

removal

hearer.

specifically where one can

concerned confirm of the

people etc. ),

(as

contrasted

additionally of something.

assuring

someone

accuracy

-89-

The conditions 1)

given

by Wierzbicka you are

for

assure of

are: that you would

I assume that want to

thinking

something

be true. you are not sure if it is that true. it is true.

2) 3) 4) 5) thing

I assume that I think I say: X

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

you would is two simply

be true

true.

4) as before There are

SPEAK(S H P) elements speaker context, about as that the to condition the hearer infers like 1): is firstly thinking the about

important

assumption P. that Hence This the it bel(S 2) is

made by the comes from hearer is the

speaker

by some process it to be true.

thinking

P and would

can be represented want(H bel(H with hearer P)))

connected that it the as: bel(H desired

1) and simply may doubt

indicates whether P is

that true.

the

speaker

believes represent bel(S 3) you is


5)

Hence we can

poss(-P))) effect of the speech to act verb, you to i. e. believe effect.


to this that can be P. to In cause the a sense as: the fact it

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

hearer that is the

to

P. wants for P)) for

have

chosen to act.

speaker

hearer speech

believe It

a justification want (S bel(H

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)))

3) want (S bel (H P) ) Presumed Effect: bel(H P)

As the (the other

the

presumed

effect are in

is that

that the

the

hearer

believes that hearer (the

that

P,

possibilities belief believing is wrong

hearer

believed that or not the

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

believed had a change

-P, of

and now either heart

still

believes convinced

-P, of

or P.

and now becomes

3.3.3

Argue

Searle differing evidence for

and Van der from P. states in time assure

Veken in

(op. that

cit. the

p. 184) speaker

define gives

argue supporting

as

only

Wierzbicka activity extended She gives


1) I I know think

that

arguing

implies op. for cit.

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

you will are right

understand then you will wrong.

that

if

you to say

say that

that I

these

things

have

was right 5) 6) I say (...

and that ). things

you were

I say these say that

because

I want

to

cause

you to

have

to

I was right

and you were

wrong.

Assuming their according speech act states Veken implies this (Searle who very is act. definition to

that

neither of argue

Wierzbicka to one-line in in of this

nor

Searle logical

are

restricting then not speech a

arguments, argue is set Searle evidence However, that of is a

the The

analysis central in the not

given argument context follow requires

this this

thesis thesis

performed and state some argue that sort

a defined pattern.

cognitive and Van der this it exists those to is

does

argue of

supporting act acts as a relation. that an

and

inter-speech speech Razor is

relation 1979) using claim force to speech

between Ockham's that

Searle

denies against dimension The a

argument

would

there (Smith and

relational 1990). require self such

illocutionary approach dimension cognitive ensure that

Holdcroft not is

cognitive relational within its that

act each But

theory speech It takes is

does act those place

because states.

contained cognitive of the

very because

states incompatibility

an argument

-91-

of

views

between

the

two participants to speech and admit act Van of the acts

in theory der

the

discourse. is simpler

Hence the than the their sort of

cognitive approach approach relational Argue because argument

approach taken is

by Searle forced to between

Veken, of

moreover, some

existence anyway. is

element as an

speech

illocutionary is take not always

force in

equally to

nonsensical know that sequence: an

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

The central of relations

thesis

that speech

will acts

be developed need not define and not exist, the the

is

that because

the it

problem is the

between states of that the

cognitive the own.

effectively discourse,

relationships speech this acts thesis.

between on their If we that

components This

argument Wierzbicka's

will

be developed first does condition not

throughout for argue

consider this the that hearer include quite

we can when

see

cognitive argument (the

state initial

need to

be present Speaker

presenting P knowing that will The air. the then point They the that was

statement). with it, his it.

may assert out state 1. thin

some people does

may disagree with of

On finding cognitive condition arise out of

disagree

a representation simply is that

Wierzbicka's do not point

arguments

generally participants assertion, going can to only

have

as a starting in the

an assertion but have at the

made by one of time of the force this it making hearer of

discourse, may not

the disagree

speaker

known that

and therefore post between hoc.

the

illocutionary of

arguing of and of an

be assigned a relation

Because speaker's it, not

requires assertion notion

necessity the hearer's

the with does

initial the

disagreement force for argue

hence

illocutionary

make sense.

3.3.4

Inform

Searle

and Van der

Veken

(op.

Cit.

p. 185)

state

that:

To

inform

is

to

assert

to that

a hearer the

with

the does

additional not already

preparatory know what

condition he is being

hearer of.

informed

-92-

This inform

rather and

simplistic assert between the So the does two

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

between essential possible that the in P inform P. Not two. that is P

encapsulate verbs. the It hearer

difference that already. Inform after true. carries necessarily agreement authority first being The with when

speech

speaker that is not

asserts the

difference no room to

of

all,

appears that it notion or

informed difference it some

P the would of

has from

believe is subject but the

this

on the authority,

established between on the

official and

unspoken is an

speaker subject matter

hearer of P.

that

Wierzbicka 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

then

gives

the

following to

conditions about

for X.

inform:

I assume that

you want about cause

know things I think know it.

I know something I assume I say (... I should ) . because that that

X that you to

you should

know.

I say this I assume

I want you will

to

cause

you to that

know it. this is not

understand

something 7) 1) is

could I will

be untrue. cause you to know it simpler, by saying hence I this. have

I assume that vague it as:

rather

and I prefer

something

interpreted

I assume that This is represented want(H condition

you want as: know(P))) could would

to

know P

bel(S The second speaker

simply be

be interpreted

as the

fact

that

knows P, P)

which

know(S
Additionally speaker version

we could believes of 2) P) is & bel(S that

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

justifies the final

the

use of

inform

as a speech re-interpreted

act 4)

and can be omitted as


SPEAK(S H P)

schema.

I have

5)

can

be

interpreted

as the

fact

that

the

speaker

wants

the

-93-

hearer

to

know P and hence P))

can be represented

as

want (S know(H 6) could an authority this should be achieved on the not difficulty
P))

by a mutual subject pose in too of P.

understanding As some sort but model.

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)))

want (S know (H P)) MB(auth(S P) P) )

Presumed

Effect:

know(H

Because why speak not the want hearer is to to

we have used.

a speech

act

called

inform if is

it

is the

now hearer

clear does by

Possible P,

problems or if the

may occur speaker

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

Conjecture but does

implies not but is

that

the answer, to

Speaker

has at

least it

thought is based

about on My P is

P some

know the not that

effectively, form a complete to

evidence condition hence

enough the

picture. what

first and

speaker as:

wants

know P or

can be represented want(S know(P)) is that P)


is the fact

The second -know(S


The third

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

mean that (... ) is contain

the

speaker It

is

tied

to

making

an utterance that or The at the best fourth final

format will

possible.

merely of

indicates uncertainty

utterance

some element

tentative is

certainty. that the speaker believes that P 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

P and can be represented

want (S bel(H The effect of focus

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:

H poss(P)) 1) 2) want(S -know(S know(P)) P)

Cognitive

3) bel(S
4) Presumed Effect:

poss (P) )
poss (P)) )

want (S bel(H

incontext(P)

Possible hearer The

effects may have

and problems sufficient that

with

conjecture to

are

firstly

that on

the P.

evidence the

make a pronouncement does not have

hearer to

may feel make the

speaker

sufficient the speaker the

evidence has

conjecture, evidence.

may ask what The hearer (in effect

evidence may feel

or even is

add possible of

that

conjecture state 4).

no significance

challenging

cognitive

3.3.6

Swear

To believe something truthfulness another

swear that that of type of

that what is the

P is we are sacred

an attempt saying to the is

to true

make the often as this to a

hearer by calling

have

to upon

speaker Although chosen

witness could be from

to seen

the as

statement. act,

speech

I have

omit

it

my list

-95-

of

speech

acts to call state to the

and to Formal

classify Speech

it

under It that

a list causes there

of

speech

acts for

that the

I intend cognitive element other

Acts.

no problems is an

approach, speech act,

except namely

"external" or some

calling

upon a deity

sacred

object.

3.4

Commissive

Speech

Act

Verbs

3.4.1

Promise

This commissive part Van the linear of der the

is

the

first

of

the

speech verbs of the is

acts

that

fall

into on Searle strength p. 192)

the the and of This

group. speaker, for

Commi: 3sive and commissive and one

involve measures the

an obligation used of by

Veken

verbs Van der

degree op. cit.

commitment measurement When we P,

(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

promise even 1983 if and

do P,

undertake (Boguslawski making effect speaker is on such the

we promise Wierzbicka to see to to to

p. 205) person to the to place Wierzbicka op. cit.

an undertaking of will that line promise undertake what the

do P. that

is

cause do P. is

hearer

believe obligation his

Additionally doing is

speaker

credibility gives p. 205). the

(Verscheuren for you

1983, p. 630). promise: want me to (Wierzbicka do P.

following 1) I

conditions know that

2) 3) 4) 5)

I know that I want I say: I want believe to

you think do it because do it. think that that this that


that you

that

I may not

do it. do it.

you want

me to

I will us to

if I say

I don't I will

do it, do. I want to

people

will

not

anything in

6)

I say this, able to think

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)

reasonable that can be

when

I make carry

want

me to as

promised

Hence

represented

know (S want (H do (S 1111)) It also seems reasonable that I am making a promise to do P

-96-

because do P,

I have hence 2)

reason

to

believe

that as

you may think

that

won't

can be represented poss (-do (S P))) )

know (S bel(H
3) is more I to

problematical, particularly the reason I ought

I may promise want for to. action. as to the do it.

to 3)

do

something to be

even an the I of

though attempt promise am

don't explain

appears but

promise, There This may be

I may make that belief

simply to could

because carry be

a feeling

obliged

out,; the represented

tentative

obligation

bel(S where Perhaps will 0(... 4)

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

an attempt by of the the to

at

explaining but act

the

obligation to

placed this now

upon as under

the an an

speaker effect obligation it

promise, speech

I prefer the P is

represent is

that

speaker done).

do P (or

see that

Hence we can represent

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

Hence we need poss(do(S

an extra

cognitive

bel(S

P)))

This

gives

us

the

schema for

promise:

Action:

SPEAK(S

H will(do(S

P)))

Cognitive

States:

1) know(S 2) know(S 3) bel(S

want(H bel(H

do(S

P))) P))))

poss(-do(S P))))

poss(O(do(S

4) bel (S poss (do (S P)) ) Presumed Effect: bel(H O(do(S P)))

Possible question promised speaker him to

problems the action. mistakenly do P. The

with

promise veracity of the

are or

firstly commitment

that to only

the carry

hearer out if

may the the wants the

speaker's

A violation comes hearer to

condition conclusion slightly

1) that

occurs hearer

the

may be

offended

because

-97-

speaker that might the the

had to speaker

promise would promise ability

to

do P,

although

the

hearer

never to

doubted do P but question

do P. anyway. to carry

The speaker Finally, out P.

may not the hearer

want

make the speaker's

might

3.4.2

Consent

In spends

her

description

of

consent, consent

Wierzbicka and agree, speaker's

(op. stating goodwill

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

Wierzbicka and permit two to the is

later form is that two

states comparable

(op.

cit. speech

p. 113), acts, in that permit actively Veken in the it

between in

the

consenting

is

active

response without It of

a particular knowledge that

request, the

whereas hearer is der a of

place permission.

curious acts is

that include

Searle consent in the

and

Van as

taxonomy act

speech permit

commissive directives.

whereas

included

list

Additionally, OK, OK, I want I don't it to

consenting happen, if for


you

involves permit happen.

effectively involves

stating simply

that stating

whereas it does consent:


want X to can't

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

happen. to cause the thing to be able to

because

I want to

happen 5) I able
1) can be

you want

happen. than me could cause it to be

assume that to happen.


to

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

a sense that the

an understanding P is hearer as: not permitted.

that

the In

speaker

has the

that

the

hearer believes it

knows that

other not

words

speaker Hence

believes

that

P is

permitted.

can be represented bel(S bel(H here very


therefore implied

-p(P))) p is used ) to
be thought that

Note at
3) with

that

as a deontic do with
of the as

operator speech

and has nothing act


that the

(or

least
may the

little

the

permit.
P is hearer permitted to do P.

a statement wants

sense

speaker

SPEAK (S H want (S do (11 P) ))

4) that the

is

a statement hearer

of

the

desired that to to it.

effect

of

the

speech

act

namely

the

now knows the

P is

permitted 5)

and that to the

furthermore fact the that speaker

speaker

wants consent chosen

hearer

do P.

refers

ordinarily and I have consent:

relates to omit

something This gives

personal the

about following

schema for

Action: Cognitive

SPEAK(S States:

H want(S 1)

do(H

P))) P))

know(S

want(H

2) bel(S Presumed Effect: know(H pP)

bel(H

-pP)) want(S do(H P)))

& know(H

It that

is

possible, hearer may

though may not

because have whether

of

the to

nature do P. is

of

the

speech

act the about he

the

wanted the

Interestingly, really sure that

hearer giving was

question to

speaker

permission permitted the to speaker

do P.

The hearer Finally, the

may have believed the hearer do P. may

do P anyway. really wants

question

whether

hearer

to

3.4.3

Refuse

A refusal it. is that Searle the it

is

a fairly

blunt Veken

way of (op. of cit.

saying p. 195) It

no,

I will that

not

do

and Van der

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

do it. want to.

I assume that I say this

I don't

because

I want

you to

know it. not happen because of

I assume you understand that.

that

X will

1)

is

fairly

straightforward

and can be represented

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

represented believes bel(S 3) therefore


SPEAK(S

by the carry out

hearer

bel(H is:

H -do(S

P))

We know that the speaker form in It

a refusal to perform,

relates therefore

to

an action we have that will could won't

that -do(S the

the P).

hearer This

wants

utterance form should the as:

logical imply action. I'm very

merely

provides the

guidance speaker it that as

surface

some way that need sorry not or

not for

be carrying example

out come out

be explicit, afraid

I'm

be possible.

4) can be simply bel(S


5) that is the

represented P)))
of wants the to

-O(do(S

a statement speaker out P.

desired communicate

effect the

of fact

the

speech that he will

act not

i. e. be

carrying

This

gives

us the

following

schema for

refuse:

Action:

SPEAK(S

H -do(S

P))

Cognitive

States:

1) know(S 2) bel(S 3) bel(S

want(H bel(H -O(do(S P)))

do(S will(do(S P)))

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

condition could do speaker's P.

clear. pointing the

However out hearer that could

condition the speaker to

hearer to the

respond Additionally, mind.

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.

Searle Van der

directives. cit. (op. cit. p. 198)

(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

as being directing him not it to to

"somewhere the do it speaker without that

between wants any the the

requesting hearer to and carry second which for not why to it I

and same In direct time

expects is

conflict, hearer Her third

making is

an order

a sense is akin

co-operative directions, seeks

behaviour. and,

meaning is really

giving second as

a variant are the relates

on the

an explanation I of direct, not just choose

directions include usually would same

sometimes and

given third

imperatives.

second to

explanations sequence used for of acts, giving

because one. Hence in not a

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

relationship a directive, of authority acts.

and hearer, permanent to include

that

institutionalised it in the list

I have

speech

3.5.1

Request

Searle as: a of

and Van der

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

same sense echoes

time of this

he goes authority using

on to that the

point makes

out it

that akin

there to a

is

often

implied

command.

Wierzbicka

example:

(4) However is with of act that the

Passengers I disagree an order surface is

are with

requested this

to

extinguish

their

cigarettes. of up. the A above command

analysis. however is it

My analysis is dressed by

an order of

form which

a request should

explained

considerations part are of required of what speech to is of on in

politeness theory. In their an This

I feel particular

be an integral passengers

the

example it is

extinguish presumably refusal. the thesis.

cigarettes; airline, is a topic

a safety there

requirement is no

therefore that will

possibility later

be explored

further

Wierzbicka cit. p. 51)


1) 2) I I say: know I

gives

the

following

conditions

for

request:

(op.

want that to

Y to

happen. happen to if someone (X) doesn't do

Y cannot cause it

something

happen.

3) 4) 5)

I say this I don't I

because to

I want

to

cause

X to do it.

cause

Y to

happen.

want

say that X will Y to

X has to

assume that I want

understand happen. cause Y to

that

I have

reason

to

say that 6) I encode

I assume that 1) as:


H want(S

X will

happen.

SPEAK(S

do(H

P)))

In the as

1) the hearer in I

speaker carry want implicitly the

is out

conveying action take P.

a want Whether the is form.


that get

to

the this

hearer, is

namely

that

expressed or whether by factors

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,

a statement action as the

know

that This

if can

you

do

not be not P

then

done.

therefore then

expressed will obtain. know(S 3) is is

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

a statement do(H the P)).

want(S that

Hence, wants

effect i. e.

knows

speaker

know(H

want(S

do(H

P)))

-102-

4) can be expressed hearer to believe is in

as the that the

fact

that

the

speaker that but

does this runs

not

want

the of to of

he has to spirit that of

do P (note a request, a request

condition contrary sense

Wierzbicka's her argument

given

above,

has an implied

authority).
-want(S bel(H O(do(H P))))

5)

is

a statement held by the

of

the

reason

for

arriving

at does

the not

cognitive to be

states

Speaker,

and therefore as:

need

represented. bel(S This gives

6) can be represented poss (do (H P)) ) the following schema for

request:

Action: Cognitive

SPEAK(S States:

H want(S 1) 2) 3)

do(H

P))) -do(H bel(H P) -> -P) P))))

know(S -want(S bel(S

O(do(H P))) P)))

poss(do(H do(H

Presumed

Effect:

know(H

want(S

Possible ask or the decline way

effects speaker to by else particularly indirect to

of

request

include

firstly Secondly,

that the

the hearer

hearer may

may refuse P in

do P It is to

himself. even

do P.

possible a later look Six, that at

that date,

hearer or in shall

may defer even

some

promising to

do P at I shall

nominating greater the

someone depth various

do P. in forms

request I

much consider

Chapter of request

where are

used.

3.5.2

Tell

Both (op. cit. different telling telling first. way of

Searle

and Van der seem of to tell:

Veken to be in firstly

(op. cit. agreement it

p. 200) that

and there in

Wierzbicka are sense sense two of of the it is to a do

p. 41,286) meanings someone a story. This meaning

can be used in

the

do something of

and secondly the two meanings

the is in the

The easier is similar that are the

probably that hearer

to the

ask

and request wants

expressing

the

fact

speaker of tell:

something. Wierzbicka

The following gives

examples

following

conditions

for

tell:

(op.

-103-

cit.

p. 41)
1) I say: I want you to do X.

2) 3)

I assume that I say this do.

I can say this because I want to

to

you. you to know what you

cause

should 4)

I assume that

you will quite


do(H represent

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)))))

This speech the etc.


3) is

is act

another definition. act of

example

of Here,

where once which

inform again could

is it

used is

inside to

another denote

intended

generic

informing,

be assuring,

reporting

a statement between the is: hearer

of

the tell

desired and

effect is no,

of that

the the

speech speaker the

act. is

The not

difference giving effect

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)))

bel(S This gives

poss(do(H us the

P))) schema for the first version of tell:

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

Possible speaker refusing

problems as to to

with

tell

include

the

hearer do

questioning P, or

the simply,

whether

he really

wants

him to

do P.

As pointed meaning something Tell not of tell

out

by Wierzbicka,

(op. do with

cit. the

p. 286) pleasure by the This form

the of

second, hearing

has as much to does with the knowing Ancient speech to the

as it

as exemplified Mariner". act hearer. as it The

sentence, of tell involve is merely is

us "The a

Rime of

communicative any state

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

Searle require it an carries additional differs

and

Van from it

der telling

Veken

(op. to of

cit. do

p. 201) something and needs but of

suggest only that to in there be the its

that that is

someone degree condition an element hearer. precedes

with

a greater

strength, that it

preparatory to imply the that

done. speaker

Require has the no

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

required initiate further action actually

the

outstanding to recover the the him to agent recipient pay, as

balance the above

we shall without legal but not

proceedings notice. is

mentioned the his no threat obligation, authority

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

I assume you have I say this because

to

do it. to cause you to do it.

I want

I assume that make 1) slightly do(H P))

you will more

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) ->

The obvious after sanction speech speaker an extra which

problem the

with speaker

require

is

when the is forced

hearer to

does

not

do P, the

presumably which that done, bel(S

institute to

behind act. that It

the is

obligation possible been that

would

vary

according could

the the

the

hearer which

inform necessitates

P has already namely

perhaps

condition,

-P).

3.5.4

Permit

A good given

example below. the nurse

showing The person action

the

distinction

between something effect to it

permit is not

and allow concerned

is so

who permits as its the hours, visitors

much with The

itself

on something. remain was not beyond permitted. the

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

assume that I don't


say: I

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)

I say this to do it.

because

I want

to

cause

those

people

to

be able

6)

I say

assume people it. to interpret

would

understand

that

I have

reasons

to

I have simply

chosen as:

1) on a more personal that P is forbidden

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

poss(want(do(H words, the

speaker

do P. 3) can be interpreted will


bel(S 4) is SPEAK(S H pP)

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

a statement not really

of

the

desired

effect for the

of

the

speech act.

act. This gives us

6) does the

seem relevant for permit:

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

used then the

by the it could

speaker

in

an area by

outside the to

his hearer.

scope The

be questioned that he doesn't he has been

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

Declare Searle "formal" declarative dimension. examples of

is

the

first

of (op.

the cit.

declarative p. 205). acts have in very that some

acts I prefer appear extra

described to in call

by these

and Van der speech

Veken acts.

Speech generally be used

Searle's linguistic

category They can only these are

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.

Expressive group of acts.

speech Some of but others

them appear do seem to acts. such

be largely a function of it their is

as greetings, other that

have

communicative they express

speech feelings

Because as regret,

-107-

to types to

define of

them

in

the

same way as has been done speech act. However, it is

for still

the

other

communicative their

possible

explore

use within

discourse.

3.7

Evidence

to

Support

the

Cognitive

Thesis

in

Child

Language

Evidence found speech from acts, play acts

to

support

the of there

cognitive the are

state

theory develop

may perhaps their factors into may also the latter the

be

an examination although here. in

way children several

use of that use help is

interrelated

come into of to speech support the


I children's developed early use milk the to of stage

Additionally, certain disorders state thesis.


the possibilities the simple

an investigation such as autism however

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

performance speech acts. a want when

the the

use

He developed or need in very are see into the through

ability For as

communicate milk The to milk. not be tone

directives. was used

example

issued was

absence

a command. pointing and this it want

used Such

different very how important a

one a

used small

when child, of

wants to

is

difficult translated up

simple On used no one

representation the by would The taking supports moulded to other myself hand, in

can

language. 'Jesus' But

he the

unfortunately act of that quite a deity state views (1981) between between age, In and exclaiming in

picked or so,

the

word

blaspheming. he is not also know

seriously reason the the for

argue this name is of

doing

blaspheming. that he is

simple, in vain.

he does This but of

simple course it

explanation could be

cognitive other Hornsby children difference from

thesis, as well. looked the the

support and in the

Bock directives particular found asking interrogatives Carrell requests that

at ages use of

the of ask

development 2.5 and more and tell polite to 6.5, and

of in they when use

an early

children particular, imperatives

were they for

than

telling. for (1981) asking

tended

telling. of that indirect they were

examined age range

children's 4 to 7 and

understanding discovered

in

the

-108-

able there found

to is

understand a general children forms. type and and

a wide

variety

of

indirect of forms

requests, acquisition. more difficult

and He

that also than the

developmental found

pattern

that

interrogative the comprehension op. cit.

declarative request for children

Furthermore the adults ease of

relationship is strikingly

between

similar

(Carroll

p. 344).

Astington use of

(1988a, 1988b) speech appear may necessary the view

carried acts. in

out Dore

a study (1977) infants fact

into had

children's noted and in it that was

commissive do that are not this not

commissives suggested commissives have not

pre-school the

be due to in

that

society they

pre-school

infants, to be

because make somewhat

acquired This

sufficient seems the to

autonomy me to

personal of a

commitments. simplification. (5) (6) (7)


It was

Consider you clear

sequence: toys?

P: Will C: Yes. C: (Starts

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

Astington might the simply

commissive, even just

be But

intention, that intention a rudimentary

future. include this

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

performative even before state some

concept This

appears because cognitive been It

suggests commissives is idea not that put

as promise until states

together cognitive

intermediate

Hirst epistemic ages of

and

Weil

(1982) meaning Their

examined of modals finding the

the in

acquisition children the

of between greater

the the the the

and deontic 3 and 6.5. in

general between

was that modals that first within the

difference difference appear from

strength

earlier

was appreciated. as early as 2.5, before

They stated children

modal

expressions modals class of

and that

distinguish the

factuals

any differentiation

-109-

modals (may modal

occurs. and of

Furthermore are

they

found

that from is

modals before

of is,

possibility and that the the of

should) necessity of

distinguished is separated. modals lagged

They also behind

noticed the

comprehension epistemic Le necessity 12th who year. has

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

and impossibility This shown finding that

up by Coates only at The 12 it

(1988), have will a

children and that system.

rudimentary still of "not these

understanding be isomorphic" findings is

of modal with that the speech than

meaning adult acts that

implication modals are

containing do not

considerably Abbeduto of the

more difficult and Rosenberg of that

those

contain

them. knowledge

(1985)

examined

children's verbs know, is

presupposition indicate are until

know and other the at factives 4, whereas

cognitive such as

and forget

their and

findings remember mastered

mastered 7.
(1980) looked of

believe

not

properly

Reeder from were see the not

at

the

emergence theory and

of

illocutionary results on used to were unevenly be out of line attempting

skills that to

standpoint entirely

Searle's

obtained

supportive.

Reeder

concentrated can The be

whether in to

contextual 2.5 use acts. state to

considerations 3 years olds. cues which One of of

distinguish that the across with

requests ability illocutionary the from who cognitive the noted

findings

contextual A finding approach. state in and the point early 'want...

develop would the not more was 'see... used as

interesting of ' was Gruber used

findings (1975) as an

cognitive that marker

view

that

stages, ' was

indication

a demand

marker.

To summarise, (5) (6) (7)


what the is direct

if

we re-examine away the

the toys?

simple

'commissive'

P: Will C: Yes C: (puts

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

interesting and hint

responses and why indirect accept of (i. e.

speech acts as

possible Furthermore contains presupposed

at if

how

speech the the the above

even primitive

we do not precursors states

a commissive in to the do an form act

commissive intention

cognitive

-110-

future promise other given

indication). does more in not

It

is

noteworthy later. acts, in If

that the then mastering

the

performative occurs

use of for be

come until

same thing the explanation

'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

Deontics which evidence some are

master from

presented credence to

conclusive, state view.

cognitive

3.8

What is

the

Cognitive

State

Hypothesis?

In (or

this

chapter specifically

I have

put

forward speech act in

a theory act terms force verbs). of

about It an

speech is

acts still

more

about of that a speech

possible force, needs to

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

Searle illocutionary the

remain preparatory or

new theory, The speech the For it known want

namely

conditions. of the

illocutionary act, but

purpose we can the is to and is

now more in terms

focused of point its

specify context. make this uttered. states, the needs some elaborate will speech

illocutionary example, that the part

upon

illocutionary wants context

a request the hearer act

speaker of the

something as are be soon

forms The some

speech of

preparatory or mind qualified, states need in say all of

conditions which must

a small

cognitive in This only I being particular in be stone. present By will it

understood making I in but the have certain for

be present

speaker's to of be the

immediately Firstly to

before

utterance. stated cases. the for cast should the time a that

because

be present chapters, the cognitive of

on this suffice act to should I

coming that not that be

states as being states making

thought the

Secondly in the speaker's

state mind

cognitive before

immediately

utterance.

-111-

this cognitive the the

do not states act

intend

that

this

is

some of

conscious them form uttering states

process, the meaning a speech should less

the for act have the

and an understanding verb. Hence, what effect

speech speaker

when correctly these cognitive effect

knows

on the same.

context.

The perlocutionary

remains

more or

The cognitive utterance to the take

action states for account

part to

of allow

the the

speech

act, to

acts select

together the this

with appropriate process style, But and utterance. a particular

the

speaker

a particular of other process is that will a but be speech also added to both

proposition. factors, cannot the be such

However, as linguistic

has hence the the

translation

exactly

specified. logical form final

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

utterance upon only a set The that

states making

have act

an, effect is not public

the stating of

making the

cognitive

states aspect of

context. the fact

relational certain cognitive

revolves made are public. many to

around

states

unanswered mind: in firstly the

questions how schema, can hearer way)? this? before act order is

of

which

the

following built of cognitive which able to up

come

an utterance the set

specified given being

plus the will

an utterance uttered states come into in (the

hearer need do

recognise to be

cognitive

some all but of

Where I

indirect to is at least

speech shed to the are

politeness on these the state cognitive is worth

hope it in

questions, speech in

then

necessary of they

re-examine cognitive themselves Now it hypothesis model (see the of

existing hypothesis state standing up to

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

communication. the message

communication and In the Harnish message acts wave) as is

called for

Akmajian, message

Demers model). the

a fuller the

description acts the

model,

speaker and

"transmitter", auditory speaker decoded private path encodes by the

hearer sound

a "receiver", the is it relevant then

(the

channel. transmitted, M. This In

some message hearer are who

M which

interprets by

as message sounds.

ideas

transmitted

public

model

-112-

back

to

John et. al.

Locke op. the

(1691), cit.

but

it

is

not

without

its

problems

(Akmajian Firstly, linguistically which process governed process. consideration particular will need one

p. 395). that is are the transmitted hearer to may be

expressions and it

ambiguous is the correct

up to

determine is is a take a not

interpretation. as the message but it model is by

Disambiguation is no does concerned means not

which, by any

as far

principles, the fact being that

random into about hearer the

Additionally, the things to

message a message to, if is

model contains

information that to of by that theory the

referred correctly there

something he is

interpret Also, is in

understand the the

message intentions, itself,

correctly. which and tied

no account determined is the speech fact act

speaker's message we in its often own

not with

uniquely this Clearly,

communicate right

non-literally. to (1979)

has made attempts Bach and Harnish

solve

these

problems. to their study. speaker solve the problems is called linguistic H share of This model. that the

attempted and close the

defeated inferential

the

message which possible

model, deserves because strategies

model

model is

Firstly,

communication a system of

S and hearer from the

inferential H's

leading of S's

utterance intent. state

expression at least

E to is

recognition that is

communicative cognitive presumptions:


The and hearer the state

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

determining uttered. assumption.

referents model

expression make this

cognitive

Communicative is that

Presumption the speaker intent. state

(CP). is

The speaking This

communicative with assumption some is

presumption identifiable also made by

communicative the cognitive

model.

3.

The belief

Presumption that is

of

Literalness there is

(PL). evidence There state


(ConPs). hearer

This to is the

is

the

shared the to

unless speaking in the

contrary

speaker this
4.

literally. cognitive

no objection

either

model.
In the course that hold: of at any any

Conversational exchange, point in the the

Presumptions speaker exchange S and the

H presume principles

following

-113-

Relevance: exchange explicable and the be used

Speaker's at in desired to that terms effect

contribution point. of the of

is

relevant is cognitive act. It

to partially

the

Relevance presupposed some speech

states may also

determine

indirection.

Sequencing: is the of

Speaker's

contribution type again appropriate this is that attempt

to

the to

talk that odds

exchange stage with of the

a communicative exchange. state is going types points states. Once model, to of by

not

at

cognitive model particular particular cognitive

except make an

th e cognitive

state why at

to

explain

exchanges reference

are to

appropriate the

presupposed

Sincerity: sincere other this in hand,

Speaker's that

contribution attitude to play

to

the

exchange On

is the of hand, of the

S has the like

expressed. down the

I would in the

importance one

somewhat is

cognitive for hearer

model. the needs

On the

sincerity utterances, speaker speech too

necessary the

interpretation to for assume that a to particular rely

because has certain

beliefs other out hearer

or wants hand,

act.

On the rule the

however, for that

on it the P,

much might wants fact

acts to not

whereby, believe P.

example, he believes

speaker when in

he believes

Quantity: amount Once this form plan of this model. of again

Speaker's information, the

utterance not

provides too much, model

just not goes

the too

required little. with not

cognitive

state

along it does

presumption. part based helping of the

Additionally, cognitive state is

although model a step

as such, in the that the

Allen's direction underlie cognitive

recognition us to

system

understand and in fact

the

mechanisms

assumption

presupposes

Quality: stated cognitive

Speaker

has

adequate This is

evidence also

for

what of

is the

or presupposed. state model.

an assumption

-114-

Truthfulness: true. this which I would because do after it

Speaker also like

attempts to play rules a part of

to

make

the

utterance of

down the out lies

importance and deceit,

effectively all form

communication.

Manner: ambiguity, unnecessary will also

Speaker avoids wordiness make this it.

speaks obscurity etc.

clearly of

that expression,

is,

avoids avoids theory

The cognitive but will not

state

assumption

have much to

say about

Politeness: is well theory of S is as will

Speaker not making have

in

speaking.

behaves

politely, vulgar etc.

that As state the role

offensive, this

abusive, the

assumption, deal

cognitive say about

a great

more to the

politeness forms

when examining and speech acts.

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

Speaker does he not does

in

speaking

behaves information

ethically, that he that a small he ought H part

that ought not does in

reveal not ask

for to do

information something only

direct etc. state this

hearer This model. will

done

have

cognitive of

comparison model not at are adds to fill

between clear; with in the

the the

cognitive cognitive

state state model, on

inferential large is of is

inferential that is

an attempt the inferential

detail

missing

model.

The strategy parts: 1.

inferential used to

model recognise

also

includes

a It

description consists

of of

the four

an utterance.

The Direct Step 1.

Strategy. The hearer H recognises what expression, E the

speaker Step 2.

S has uttered. recognises which meaning of E is intended

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.

The Literal Step 5.

Strategy. The hearer appropriate recognises for that to it be would be

contextually literally. Step 6. Hearer

speaker

speaking

recognises

what

speaker

is

intending

to

communicate

literally

(and directly).

3.

The

Non-Literal 5'. Hearer for

Strategy. recognises speaker recognises that to it would be contextually literally. is communicating

Step

inappropriate Step 6'. Hearer

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

inferential model attempt above


seems

model is to are not fill actually

for

speech

act at

recognition. odds as to with

The this, of

cognitive however the steps


It cognitive presumptions linguistic presumption cognitive state the model description

necessarily in more detail carried


to

it

would listed
now

how some

out.
exactly of detail. the what the

appropriate is and

summarise aspects more

state need

model to

what in

pragmatic Firstly the and by cognitive is in the

explained (LP),

presumption of state

communicative are also

presumption(CP) presumptions held the model

literalness(PL) model. to the The expand

principal upon the

area

where

attempts of

inferential

Conversational

Presumptions.

Relevance necessary reveal for

is the

of

importance, state

and an assumption model, but actually it is is

of not

relevance expected than

is to in

cognitive what

much more about

relevance

other

-116-

terms some

of

cognitive state, that the

states the

i. e., model act in

given will terms content

a speech have of

act

that to states,

expresses say but about not to

cognitive to of

something

responses in the relation cognitive sequencing will not terms

speech propositional utterance. two model

cognitive how will it

and it and (in

is use

relevant a other to doing relevance hand

preceeding R between state

Generally, Pi

utterances will attempt between

P2.

On the Four) but of

the

Chapter

explain so it are

relationships that by is odds with larger speech an

utterances, elements alone. the cognitive model, when that looking is

in

recognise explainable Sincerity

structural act theory where

discourse

issue the

state however at I

model hope to

is say

slightly more acts. right, but theory. it

at about

inferential

sincerity is of not

conditions a presumption its possible a significant

formal in based cognitive its

speech own

Quantity because will

interesting by of plan

explanation part

models, state

form

the

Quality but will not

is

also be

a presupposition explored I will much examine by the

of further. when

the

cognitive Truthfulness at state

state

model is speech as by is the will a

presumption acts. politeness cognitive come into Manner

that is which state the

looking

formal model expanded that treatment.

assumed is an area

cognitive will be

that

greatly is

model. but

Finally will not

morality receive

something

model,

a complete

Thus the 1. an

aims

of

the

cognitive cognitive in

state state

model

are: to how provide and why

To use the explanation

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

complete explain Six)

picture phenomena

how politeness as indirect

(Chapter

3. are

To build necessary act

up a description when constructing description cognitive (Chapter Five).

of

the an

possible utterance of the

steps

that a

from utterance and all

speech logical

(consisting

form,

pre-conditions

presumptions).

-117-

3.9

Formal

Speech

Acts

and Expressives

In made I said comprise such very

the

earlier "ordinary" formal formal category

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

been what be that verbs

between called about the

(i. e. speech speech of

have

acts. acts.

However Many of are name

needs acts

declaratives and his

as baptise, few. Austin just however types

excommunicate started such acts, out

uttered 1962)

by by

Harvard moving applying Searle Van der same

Lectures on to the

examining He to was both

before about

acts. analysis no such to share be not have

cautious of and act. in

same

However (Searle and in feel way and

apparently Veken way. speech

reservations, describe Austin's considered alone arrived speech speech much in both

attempted I should I am to

sort

of

act

the that to

However acts acts. also acts appear

reservations in this at acts. acts, more the

and

formal

a different view, same Whereas Bach

communicative (1979) such to briefly Bach

Harnish calling intend

conclusion I only the

conventional formal go into

consider and Harnish

having

made

distinction,

detail.

Firstly acts: effectives

they

distinguish and verdictives.

two types

of

conventional effect

speech changes that in are Bach

Effectives verdictives issued state in are

institutional binding because

affairs, they cit.

whereas have been p. 117)

judgements

an official that:

context.

and Harnish

(op.

also

Conventional communicative

illocutionary and do not

acts require

are

not

essentially

R-intentions.

The acts but

hearer is that merely the the of out, the the

is

not

so much

concerned Consider

with the a baby, are and is

the speech

uptake act

of

such

an onlooker. subject case, ceremony. fact that cannot of then

baptise, this there have does a acts is as also not formal are

assuming not

baptism the However

is parents as

although merely Harnish made say these

always

observers pointed imply speech

Bach

a distinction with the one.

being

that act

a speaker and

same breath However

a communicative

-118-

different,

and it

would Hence, to

be a mistake I feel that acts

to the

try notion

to

fit of

them cognitive on in is the

into

the states other speech to where a

same framework. is hand, acts not applicable

speech

such have

as baptise: a meaning whereas that it

the

sincerity that of is

conditions fundamental

seem to to the

formal possible rules

act, act

conceive sincerity lie P)

a communicative apply, that

speech e. g. attempts held

breaks I could

conditions act

a lie. to

perhaps the bel(S for state

define bel(S

as a speech with the

communicate speaker of

condition of breaking

by the the

-P).

The formal

consequences speech If the are acts

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

explicitly likened updating asks the

(a process ensure the to the

has been

two-phase a

protocol database, they are

consistent process an

distributed processes if are

where ready

master accept (1983)).

update,

after

which

they

committed,

see Date

Additionally speech formal testifying which words, I acts. aspect may I might while

certain Consider of this

formal testify, act is the into

speech I testify act of

acts

may

not oath, the detail, etc. of in

even and oath.

be the Yet

under taking

involve

going

considerable on things types

during In other acts same

make assertions, I am uttering to etc.

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

proof same sort speech The to

that of

speech as

considered acts, using the seen quite of It the

communicative baptise not be or

speech marry if be and

acts.

One cannot would

marriage with

ceremony "Well formal from speech for be

correct might

end ring", It act

henceforth acts are

you

a wedding formulaic. speech of

precise to

is that

difficult, can that not. must are that If ask to

instance, as determines are indirect why of acts

conceive

interpreted

testifying. whether forms this speech cannot is for so act have

swearing is

an oath or one acts fact

primarily there the form

speaker

testifying acts only, speech the very

certain and theory, if

speech indirect then

question a part speech

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

Additionally that these I Searle in has

called

expressives. earlier as to to exactly consider where

referred With should

my descriptions on the it of is fence tempting (1972),

chapter. they using

class the

remain hand that be

one to to thank

an analysis types other are

similar considered when I for that I am what is the

Goffman

mini-discourse someone there that done describe state -

structures, is fact more that at

hand ritual,

formal gratitude the

communicating they used cognitive have to

show

sometimes expressives, theory.

least. it

Whatever will not

analysis affect

adversely

3.10

Conclusions

In speech what logical the final I act

this verbs have form

chapter to

I develop the used,

have

worked

through schemas, logical

examples which form. information of take states, place, is I

of

several in

action utterance along are for states. the with

expressed The to utterance build

called can be

other a set to

up are

utterance. pre-conditions as which cognitive is upon of

There

also act

which which a I

essentially expressed effect, like to

have

Finally, of In Harnish of the effect

there the

presumed would the I am act

an expression the hearer. and

speaker with what speech in

have

making it

a comparison becomes and more clearer how one detail

inferential hoping may Four. Secondly, cognitive pragmatic of surface Five. to to affect

model achieve. another

Bach

The will

notion be

sequencing in

explored

Chapter

hope model outlined and

to

show can in

how be

speech used 3.8 of the in

act

descriptions conjunction

in with the

the the

state maxims form, This show inferred

section

to

influence will take taken

choice in and

an analysis with

this approach the

place by Bach

Chapter Harnish act view

contrasts given from it. forms on

how,

an utterance, Finally, part surface I of forms

appropriate to greatly

speech extend theory the by

may be that

hope the in

politeness its effect

overall Chapter

demonstrating

Six.

-120-

4.

Speech

Acts

and Discourse

Structure

4.1

Introduction

In of

the

previous

section,

I developed definition

a schematic contained the

definition following

speech

acts.

The schematic

separately i)

identifiable A state believes speech act or set or to


that a belief

components: of states that define what for an a individual particular

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

comprehend from that


iv)

sort

response for

the the

hearer. hearer
effect to act.

Perhaps, may not


of know, the

example what
act, do as

an understanding asserting.
what of we want

believe
speech or

he is
i. e. a result

A desired the the hearer speech

believe

hearing

v)

An

action

that used to

specifies perform the

what act is

sort to

of take. a

form

the

utterance In definition theory little to of to this

section

I hope to to put

indicate acts

how such into the

speech for

act a has is of a

can be used discourse do with

speech

framework above is

structure. discourse to the

The first structure, but

component, the second the bel(S

what

be communicated act is to

hearer.

If

we assume that such of that is not the as:

point P) In

speech this words, conveying: discourse committed speaker's elaborate expressed also

communicate to the

some state context

then other as

state

may be added uttering P). After The belief

discourse.

before

some statement the speaker this must

may be interpreted committed the in some to P in is to

bel(S context. to P.

the now the to state above to

making hearer in which

utterance, respond this

speaker way

expressed on the

P and in the

section, can respond in is the an

I intend to list attempt the

ways in

hearer

by a speech some bearing

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

speech between between (Searle Chapter specifying element


act ought as

act

theory acts. acts

has little Indeed, are of

or nothing Searle insufficient hand things way of states

to

say that

speech

speech 1986).

interest

On the

other such the

conversational as a theory the adjacency as to

analysis pairs how the


If theory, not able thought schematic these difficult

Two) describes very in much in

an adjacency
is be able act to stand to

pair
as why,

constrains
a for viable

second.

theory to

alternative answer ought which that both to is be is the of more

say

example it

thought to

a speech

category, an answer category. acts can I

or to

indeed

specify of as

what

constitutes act speech

a question to to to show answer

a speech to as well

hope help

approach questions questions.

as providing

an answer

some even

To that Si is with

pose

the

question form state how,

more utterance set if Ci at

formally, used to

if

I make an

utterance act in

a surface cognitive T, then

perform

some speech content the Pi

and propositional all does Pi P2?


of in also not to to

some context response


This in the

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

described chapter. to ask In some

inferential/cognitive to the above

state question that it are

addition additional given the types types, employed. layers of

subsidiary some speech of act

questions Si is

are

Firstly, any act? speech that can way By act be

possible possible necessarily strategy discourse both seem the to

types of I

responses I

that

responses, am referring

do not to the that and models

of

response several

Secondly, structure, analysis provide or is it

given

has

hierarchical analysis must and speech

discourse agree on this, for a limited all

conversational act levels, hierarchy? A speech phenomena? third act theory

a total merely

explanation applicable to

hierarchical subset of the

question theory Here I

that be am

is

no

less of

important, explaining particularly

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

relationship discourse speech levels

between structure. act of theory

theory answer need

the and I will

strategies further. The question of

discourse

explore

range that get,

of P,

responses then are being

is

one that type of

should responses that in it

also can is

be I not form

examined. conceivably even the

If

I assert expect to to talk

what they able

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

delivery, unintelligible might be (1)

An example

(1) An example something (2)


The most

There's of like Sorry,

no need to in which

shout. it might be unintelligible might be

a case (2):

can you repeat


response rel(Pi, according act is

that,

its

rather
P2 that

noisy
to

in
some

here.
Pi after with Pi

common relationship is

a response meaning to the alone two

relevance as of it does

P2)

P2 coming

relevant Speech

conversational should not are only mind. to

presumption need to be to we is

relevance. with

theory why of

burdened each have the other.

an explanation A full detailed explanation cognitive speech it will act

propositions may of the

relevant come If say to when this

relevance

a more case

explanation theory become have clear

then I is yes. it

can think

anything that the

about this

sequencing? question

answer

Thirdly, which case

is is

possible no

for

the

hearer

to

change between marked means

topic, the in that

in two the two

there

relevance topic

relationship is normally This

propositions, utterance propositions presumption sequencing other point words, a topic (see

however for

change Schiffrin

example and P2

1987). break they largely that

Pi of

effectively however which is

the must

conversational still act obey driven. at not the In what be

relevance,

presumption, it change is

speech

speech may take

acts place.

largely For

determine it would

example

-123-

permitted example: (3) (4)

to

introduce

a topic

immediately

after

question,

for

Do you know whether By who drivers over the


would

that

was true about tougher

or not? the government minister on drunk to be

the was

way,

did

you hear for got

responsible and limit?


be it seen is as clear

legislation

then

breathalysed

and was found

Response following of forbidding

(4)

evasive. that the

However rule is

if not

we consider just

the

response, two

a matter

questions

together?

(5) (6) In (6),

Do you know whether What exactly assuming that then of did

that

was true 'The

or not? Model Theory'? to do with what

you mean by Theory' wholly

'Model (6) is

has something relevant. I intend This to

has gone before the acts.


A previous

brings call

us on to

final

category

response,

which

meta-speech

meta-speech speech act.

act For

is

one

that

relates

to

the

contents

of

example:

(7)

The cirrus be better

clouds weather

have ahead. you

formed (Si) about

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

(7), able I will The meta-plans a

whereas to show be idea

(8b) that able of

is by to

an example introducing provide speech by

a meta-speech the idea of of similar Insertion

meta-speech insertion to the

an explanation acts is very

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).

sequences for and the simple

provide reason of

conversational inserted If we between are to

analysis, the have speech of first a theory acts insertion answer

that

second of speech

parts acts

an adjacency that allows

pairing must acts The act take is

between account the

within

a discourse The of act

structure, idea insertion and of

sequences. to the problem speech some

proposed

difference is largely the of

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-

will this hearer to

form idea

the in

second

half

of

the

speech in this

act

pair

(I

will

describe the me as

considerable have

detail

chapter).

However, want such

may not

understood I have

my assertion just asserted

or may perhaps and reactions and so on, form

elaborate for

on what clarification, In order

requests sequences. pair of

elaboration maintain an the idea

insertion between a as

to

of

a relation can speaker's cannot be

speech for In

acts, the

insertion to react the

sequence to the

seen original

necessary utterance. speaker's

hearer

the

example? above, unless there are

hearer

comment on the sky of is. to a

assertion

he knows four

what

a mackerel

To summarise given i) speech act

broad

categories

response

Si: problem the speech act act that one relates to

A communication the way in which

speech with

was communicated. relation between

ii)

An ordinary the two


change

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

roughly order speech didn't to say to act.

defined make In

as a the a

something reasonable example mackerel intelligent, I shall not consider mostly stated that still that is the

necessary the the original

response above, sky in

respondent order

know what something

was and in

he would category on category that to the

need this 1 2. any

information. further and will be

concentrating Having something there is

relevance

relationship of speech act

itself act the

is

not

be defined of to

as part

theory, sort are of two

question

how a speech it. I believe

shapes there

response main

can be given which the this

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

logical order that is Q. Q. to

relationship utter the

states

necessary lets to so,

a particular states that

To make this to be present

assume plead say of by set

one of that So, One the if of to

person I plead the Q.

making for

has a reason then

do P,

I am doing to the

so because plea is

ways that Hence,

a hearer

may respond

referring

one way that

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.

a response time in that

communicated elaborating the schema the

state on definition cognitive asserting this.

some assert

chapter then by

For given state: that believe examine define This

example, in bel(S they in the P). also P.

previous The believe Thus one

chapter, hearer that of may P, the

am expressing by other of this

respond on the aims

(effectively) hand, they

may not is to to them.

chapter and be to

communicated the leads sort to of

cognitive responses of

states that can

logically logically

attempt to

given

a sort

discourse

logic.

4.2

Cognitive

States

and Context

It cognitive given S2, states two with

is

now

time influence speech

to

examine the acts

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

sequencing within rel(Si, an S2), between describe hearer as

discourse, the speech as They form B of specifies there

relevance constrain the and with Flores

relation

how do these

sequencing (1986) and for

Winograd taking series structure conditions possible model): them that is or the received to Flores place of

conversation partners. in the

speaker

possibilities (figure of courses 4.1). satisfaction. of the negotiate can also its within attempted for action hearer

a request from the to the them. the

A request After (according can accept in

A to request the

Winograd

firstly ask to

conditions, Additionally, before the a

a change withdraw conditions. the to

they

speaker or a new

request Each In of

response in turn

modify state

actions what of

leads and

graph. achieve

a sense, is a sort pair.

Winograd outline

have

conversational

structure

a request/response

The Winograd namely between or do speech pairs

and Flores acts only

model act

raises

an interesting of

question; sequencing sequences) such as the

within

a framework such as insertion structure,

(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

B: Reject A: Withdraw A: Reject B: Withdraw A: Withdraw A: Withdraw

-127-

one actions speech such

described described act as

by in

Winograd the

and

Flores? and

After Flores

all structure other

some are hand

of in

the fact

Winograd such

categories are not.

as promise,

on the

others

counter

If constrain explain whereas speech discourse does terms

there

are

two different acts, example is not. both then it

levels is

of

discourse that this as a

that

serve

to to act, at

speech why for an answer acts

possible is it

may serve speech to a that look

a question Clearly,

regarded will

be necessary and within

operating framework. mean that

as adjacency it should

pairs

larger this in

However, all discourse

be made clear can be

not of If

structure

described

speech

acts. first of states all the speech to act the verb assert, in then the

we consider four cognitive

it last

has

according

description

chapter: 1) bel(S 2) +bel(S [Ex: P) ) (H (bel P)) poss


INFORM(H cognitive to prepare with one an what that [Ex: bel(S has x)])) no effect for the on the fact The that second context, it

bel(x

-P)])

3) bel(S
4) Then merely will state utterance be true. want(S first

the

state the he is

serves disagree is the of

speaker is

some people cognitive by P the to the P that context: is the

asserting. effectively that in the the which

"transmitted" speaker it is believes

assertive, within the

namely context to context, true

Hence has

spoken, that

speaker true. speaker

become within that P))

committed the P is

fact the

he believes hearer add

Similarly, believes bel(S

now knows to the

hence

we can

know(H

The third that internal


context. The the speaker

cognitive might state of

state be believed the

simply

prepares hearer,

the

speaker because

for this

the is

fact an

he

by the it

speaker,

has no effect

on the

discourse

fourth making the

cognitive the effect the

state assertion of effect the

is and

concerned is of

with no direct

the

reason concern the

for when

considering Having

speech that

act an

upon

context. has upon

described

making

assertion

the to

context, the

we now need to and whether

consider

the

hearer's in any

likely way

responses constrains

assertion

an assertion

-128-

what to

follows

it. accept of

Obviously, or all, to reject we are change later

the

speaker are the or

is

prepared

for

the

hearer

either First

P, but making topic

more alternatives assumption that

possible? the act, hearer these

will will

not

attempt with and

issue that

a meta-speech

be dealt bel(S know(H P)

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

categories assertion. accepting different Secondly, believes following more follow of

Firstly, that sorts directives; that an P, assertive It P of is

true assertive the

assertion. speaker directive pose may

may question possible to

hence act. is

final

category, how a promise

commissives for example

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

assertion, with promise

a criticism. relevant directly perceives

problem it it

that

P then then

represents can wants this of the only him is

a change come to about do P. It

relevant that the

because is

hearer to

speaker of why One the This by

possible to the

provide

an explanation cognitive for promise him state speech act to states. was

so by

reference or

presupposed states hearer the which of

preconditions knew or believed

cognitive that the using way by the result

that

speaker analysis which another. addition

wanted

do P. approach

suggests we can

a method the to

cognitive one the

determine back

constrains then in

Going to simply P) or

assertion,

bel(H

bel(H

'-P)

if other

epistemic, possibilities, of

modal

and deontic however

operators going necessary.

are on to

involved, examine

there these

are some

before is

explanation

these

operators

-129-

4.3

Speech

Act

Schemas and Logical

Schemas

In from logics. and this be used

the

remainder logic

of

this

chapter, as both introduce

I shall alethic logical can these

be using and

operators modal use systems P

epistemic

as well I shall

deontic that

Furthermore raises together

schemas different

two major and what


P has been been

questions: exactly
used to

can P represent?
represent modified of or a proposition by modal P or itself and where

So far, necessary, operators, schematic be it but and

has no if it into

explicitly

deontic was could using make the be

mention was, P. such that in

was made whether modal also bel P is

whether deontic used want. in in I

operators formulae will that it

substituted operators

P has as

been and

epistemic assumption replaced formulae PvQ P& -Q by

throughout any as: wff

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

the this the

operators should basic studied Hughes are the be modal

on P itself, so requires operators different Cresswell T (first S5 are are the of

poss

etc.

The

justification. and poss. of modal the These

Firstly, have

consider been see popular (1937). for

extensively example systems Also the In P, the

in and system

logic, most Feys

Some of by

Robert and

systems system

S4 and

(Lewis distinct of and these.

Langford

1932). namely

S5 there poss(P) and number S4

modalities, The are cit. logical There in it chosen these is ).

necc(P), an in infinite the

negation modalities and that a

system 14 distinct A problem necessity is

T has ones with which

there op. to

system of of modal

(Hughes logic use is for the in in

Cresswell they study refer of

systems is not

much

language.

no exact and

correlation the ones that

between occur

distinct English. English,

modalities Although I have

systems to analyse

possible to

have the

iterated cases

modalities where modalities

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

survey foundations Von the Wright deontic of if

deontic of deontic

(1951). between modal is

stated notions

there obligation

significant permission example not if the axioms:

notions necessary

necessity and

possibility. its negation if and

a proposition Similarly, of of the Von

possible. the negation primitive

a proposition proposition Wright's is system

obligatory

permitted. there are

Permission three

Op <->

-P-p

Pp V P-p 0(p (Note operator


Von names he the of

& -p) in

and -P(p the above

& -p) notation, )

are

not

valid. a proposition and P is the

that

p is

denoting
Wright acts the

permission.
stated that to

deontic

operators or to be states used

must of as of

be prefixed affairs.

to Hence and is not

and

not

descriptions operators is that Op is the not and determine deontic

intended implication

deontic of i. e. this 00p

act-predicates operators and cit. )

iteration a wff Hilpinen whether logic or

permissible, 1971, it is p. 10). almost as

<->

(Follesdal (op.

Hilpinen that are

However impossible principles

Follesdal to of

state wffs

iterated not.

acceptable

Anderson to alethic Op <->


where N is

(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

system for this point

of

deontic the not

logic paradox affect its a way

can of use of we

rise

certain

paradoxes, 1963). as However

example should is that to

commitment in speech

(Chisholm act what theory

Chisholm's to do after

we need do

deciding ought to

we ought

we fail

something

do.

Given accepted acceptable proposition then in

that deontic and

it

is

unclear

whether we could six

iterated assume that possible

wffs they

should are on

be not the

systems, then that

this

leaves deontic

operators refer formulae to

P (assuming they

operators to the

human acts do(... P)):

more properly 0 (do (x P) ) -O(do(x P))

may only

apply

p (do (x P) ) -p(do(x P))

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:

0 (do (x P) ) -O(do(x p(do(x P)) P))

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

be called that all

the

operator

we make the states the of

assumption affairs or

propositions then we can P) it

represent distinguish respectively. prefixes meaning: simply in the

acts, them

two by representing will will(do(x of doing i. e. is only P)) P. will(P)

as P and do(x when the

operator i. e.

intensional when it When it has

P),

rough P it

has the the

intention tense,

prefixes

future

means P will

happen

Using operator combination. P)) that and you

consider a fine if I this

possibility

There

distinction say: case I

necc(do(S have failed hand,

0(... of the

seems form:

On the

other

a sentence

-132-

to

...,

whether exactly

it

denotes the hearer necc

necessity has to

or do. refer (I

obligation In practice, to states

seems to I shall of affairs I

depend make and am can it not be does this be

upon the the going

what

assumption deontic to

that operators

and poss to acts

refer the in

do this and

because deontic however, to acts they

consider although

cases

where this modal

modals

combined, make will sense occur

practice to apply

can occur, operators

sometimes in the

and cannot

analysis it is

below). theoretically appears up your could out the to

This

means that to

combined, cases. Consider: an obligation seat. act. with

however For

possible meaningfully seat.

do so in prefix

certain 0(... ). out

example You have to act.

poss to give This

A sentence to

pointing give

be:

You may have of

up your to

A sentence On the 0(... ). other

pointing hand the

possibility necc have to doesn't give

an obligation appear to seat. forbid P)))

operator

combine Other you is the

Consider: are her. I won't possible, This

*You must for

up your have to

combinations from seeing

example: indicates

I might that

sentence these

poss(f(do(H

possible. set of

consider

combinations

when examining

operators operator with P)) that

on P and do(x will deontic appear to appears

P). to be superfluous for the is example when O(will(do(H i. e. It used in P))) is

The conjunction and 0(do(H obligatory Will give P))). you

operators, have roughly

same meaning, that

you will

do P and It with the

obligatory operators, becomes: cases with

you do P. e. g. I might

may also a lift to

be used work

modal This

tomorrow. only consider

poss(will(do(S will alone. proposition the not epistemic consider that

Once again, Having

I will the

examined say at in once

possible these as:

operators apply bel(S for ..

upon the use with P). I will

P,

I must bel

that

operator the there operator allow for

formulae

such

operator are

know as a separate indeed want differences appears to

case,

although the two. It

I acknowledge The doesn't of

between be a lot

epistemic seem to P to to say is

simpler. the it

any operators or want P to

on P. you to

I may want However want

state

affairs

come about, that I want to

do P. or

makes no sense be forbidden.

be necessary you to

P to P. state

That

different

my wanting given a certain

forbid

Therefore, P) to there the are

a communicated set of belief

of that After

the the all,

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

hearer such as:

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:

(12) or even (13) On case, choose the in to -bel(H If, for

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

that: was a tremendous when compared climbdown with his

(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

(16) Not The that. Next, where the hearer's

at

all. can be taken to express: I don't believe

response

I shall hearer of doubt For

consider believes or

the that

modal P is

operators. possible, of

The first it what is the that:

case either

is an has

expression just

a hedged the

acceptance speaker chess

speaker

asserted. (17)Kasparov

example, is the

may assert player

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

intonation (19a) (19b) (19b) is truly

us to {With (With

make such

a downward a rising the desired that

I don't

tone)

you are whereas

right) (19a) avoid

expresses a pragmatic

cognitive enables

perhaps

device

hearer

to

-134-

disagreement. The second may assert (20) leading to (21)


or

possibility ) that: in

is

-poss(P).

For

example,

the

speaker

(state? Your a

dog's response not

my garden by the

again, of:

hearer

That's

possible!

(22)

He

can't

be,

blocked

up that

gap

in

the

hedge

yesterday. I suggest P). The asserts next :


solution responds went with clear when I like: added the acid.

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

(24) then that he P.

Well is

that effectively that

is

what

is

supposed that it

to is

happen. necessarily acts such what the as case assert is

stating I have

(Note almost

been using

speech

and state the adds onto

interchangeably, difference necessarily between the

I shall these it

explain

I feel

principal that the The P is

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

consider: operators, The first

'0(P),

considering be of the

P must case

be an act, is when 0(P) P

hence is

used do(x

response Typically, sympathy states: (25) down, the hearer (26) The speaker he did by out not

assertion arises speaker's

(statement) as a form position, of

that agreement, for

(i. e.

consolation if the

example

I took

our

dog to

the

vets

this

morning

to

have

her

put

may respond Well, has feel out

with: do it, he has about speaker not she was suffering. just doing, carried out an action that

you had to stated that

comfortable that the

and the

hearer

responds to it. hearer is carry

pointing the action

had a moral feel

obligation bad about that the

and should the other

therefore

-0(P)

on

hand may indicate

-135-

commenting and thanks states above for that: (27) trains


the hearer

on the his

fact

that

the This

speaker

has done

something as a the form

over of

obligations. of

may even be used for example, if

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

who has where authority that

do the that this forbid of that's it

case is in but If the

hearer retort: again.

respect

then to the

is

forbidden, is in

speaker becomes in

a position But authority

hearer's neither or

response party are I

a question: of

a position that of is

assertion: A similar on who If is the in 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

a position has to You

permission that for to he

speaker a position response: If

asserted/stated grant are permission

P matters, is of Well, is in in

then the form

hearer's a question.

permitted is is if in

do that?

neither

party then it hand

a position

authority you're a position across that

respect your

to rights.

P matters, On the with for You respect not may

a comment: the hearer then or wish. it

other to asking do that

authority mild rebuke

P matters, permission, if you

may come

a confirmation

P is

permitted:

Finally, with is an action, used simply that that

we

must when it

consider expresses the

the

operator

will. rather If the

Specifically than when it has the just

intention, tense. be little if P), the the first

to P,

denote then

future seems to Thus, bel(S

speaker in

asserted stating pair looks

there do P. as:

point

hearer in the P))

he will

utterance will(do(H

can be interpreted an unlikely In the more course like I second of

response

part. section, than the P). I have given examples needs that to be

this

looked

statements stated that

assertions, communicated I also

and this

explained. presupposed

cognitive to the

state notion

by assert

was bel(S

referred

-136-

of

authority assert speech

in

various and act state state

places. is is that know(S itself speaker

Firstly, the P). in states For the that

one

of

the

differences state a comes to I to be am be not

between for the

communicated This is not

cognitive necessarily but assumed that

difference about an because authority the

that

manifests the

surface P, I might because I am I he

form, is state

when

on P matters. works on the of Robert

example

studying an

Schumann, what subjects itself). may be assert that queried

am assumed (but

authority

knowing

studying is and a thin those

necessarily line asserted. style would currently asserted theory. of not between

subject those example, things

matter that

There stated that is if I

dividing that in but I can are the I was be act

For Robert

I might

am improvising to stated debate, that what for

Schumann, expect a patio stated

because to in is not be

open I

normally building and what

my garden. however

Exactly a problem

speech

We can therefore state:


assert There are (S P) two

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

authority: and secondly (auth(A and in

on P matters B with A refer state the respect

an authority

P matters of assert/state are by given

summary directly to

it

table and

communicated hearer in response where A name response second to is

the to it

speaker that has given state,

communicated the outcome to the authority of

relationship, exchange. act in

a. bearing in the

the

then

hearer's

the

speaker's that I state shall of most such as

assertion consider bel(S closely conjecture, suggest the

statement. where The perhaps the speaker act

The communicates verb although The that

case

a cognitive this corresponds are others

poss(P)). to is

speech

suggest, etc. in given hearer

there

guess, appears to that in which

estimate lie can either be

difference conclusion Once

between was I respect

these reached shall to

and or

how the to can P.

certainty the ways

again, with hearer the

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)

Speaker bel(S bel(S bel(S P) P) P)

State

Hearer bel(H -bel(H bel(H

State P) P) poss(P))

Authority -

Hearer accept dispute

Act

hedged acceptance/ doubt P) dispute

know(S

P)

bel(H

-poss(P))

auth(S

bel(S bel(S know(S

P) P) do(S P))

bel(H bel(H bel(H

necc(P)) -necc(P)) O(do(S P)))

auth(S P)

comment comment sympathise


console

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)))

auth(S auth(H auth(S auth(H -

P) P)

know(S

do(S

P))

bel(H

p(do(S

P)))

P) P)

-138-

hand,

he can For (29)

reject if

it the

(-bel(H speaker

P))

or

confirm that:

it

(bel(H

P)).

example People of

suggests taller might (bel

seem to

be getting hearer [

generally, be: H poss(P)) would ] bear that out.

examples (30a) (30b) [ (30c) [ The that softened (31)

responses You might I don't -bel(H Yes, bel (H

by the be right.

think P) ]

official

statistics

I seem to P) ]

recall

reading

that

that

was the

case.

communicated for assert, as a result A: its

hearer except of

response: that the

bel(H hearer merely last

-poss(P)) response suggesting night

is

similar to

to be

seems that

the

speaker at

P. e. g. I saw

When I looked moons. think necc(P)) suggests is bound the

Saturn

I fancied

one of (32) The When case the B: of

I don't bel(H

that's is that to

possible. again similar is

[with to the

your that case it

telescope] for the assert. hearer a

speaker that it that final such A: B: as:

something happen, in

responds confirmation The exchange (33) (34) When 0(do(S speaker the P)). to

this

case

becomes

P is modal

case. bel(H -necc(P)) may occur in an

case:

I think It

the

crystal have to.

will

take

on a regular

shape.

doesn't to

response Then this do P. A: B: For

the

speaker the

state hearer

bel(S urging

poss(do(S

P)))

is the

suggests example: visit

or persuading

(35) (36) On the then it

I might I think hand, more I will

him tomorrow. to do so. response for to is: bel(H '0(do(S P)))

you ought when the

other acts A:

hearer

like

a comment, the

example: you this to. used, it the at is heavily dependent evening.

(37) (38) Once again, upon

return feel that

book

B: Don't

you have fP is

when the

operator For example

who can forbid. (39) A: I think Are That I

consider my car

following: the back with with in future. A) B) party has

I might

leave to

(40a)B: (40b)B: (40c)B:

you allowed is think strictly that

do that?

(Authority (Authority (neither

forbidden. is forbidden.

authority)

-139-

The same thing (41) A:

applies I think Well Yes, Yes, that's

to

permit: leave right. my car at the back A) in future.

I might your

(42a)B: (42b)B: (42c)B:

(Authority with to

with B) do

you may do so. I think you're

(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

interesting in and the brevity,

equivalents simplicity

therefore, consider

The examining an obligation sense state hearer have

next the

case case to

is:

bel(S the

O(do(S

P))).

It that on P that

is the

also hearer

worth has make belief If the we

where

speaker

believes

do P.

The only hearer P))) it or to is

operators to the

seem to speaker

as a response that: also a form (43) (44) A: B: bel(S believes of

by the O(do(S that

expressed

are the

the

deontic

operators. duty e. g. to

speaker's

do P then

acceptance have

acknowledgement. report what

I shall I know. other then

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

believes then inform

forbidden forbid that with then being -

and the P is respect it

is

an

P matters, may is is in in for simply

he may either the of of speaker

speaker forbidden. to P or the do

speaker party of

a position a position the

authority authority, position

neither form that

may take obliged to

sympathy is

speaker's

which If the

forbidden. believes the that. P is permitted is (or going of is in a is to be authorised an act of or of

hearer P), if of then

to

permit

hearer's party if is the

response in

informing, granting authority.

neither permission

a position hearer

authority, position

If is look

the

speaker to

communicates the only

that belief O(do(H the of

he believes states P))) of

that the

the hearer -0(do(H that

hearer that P))). P is

obliged

do P then are either

plausible it is which

bel(H for

or bel(H to believe

However forbidden The

also

possible

hearer objection.

may act

as a form bel(S

cognitive

state

-O(do(S

P))),

which

may

be

-140Table Speaker 4.2

The Structural

Relationships Hearer State

for

SUGGEST(P) Authority Act

State

bel(S bel(S bel(S bel(S bel(S bel(S bel(S

poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss (P) ) poss(do(S P)))

bel(H
-bel(H

P)
P)

confirm
reject

bel(H bel(H bel(H bel(H bel(H

poss(P)) -poss(P)) necc(P)) -necc(do(S O(do(S P)))

P)))

agree as for confirm disagree urge convince comment as for as for assert assert assert

poss (do (S P)) )

bel(S bel(S bel(S

poss(do(S poss(do(S poss(do(S

P))) P))) P)))

bel(H bel(H bel(H

-O (do (S P))) f(do(S p(do(S P))) P)))

Table

4.3

Structural

Relationships

for

FORBID(P)

Speaker bel(S fP)

State

Hearer bel(H

State poss(fP))

Authority auth(S, auth(H,

Act hedged accept question authority evade accept

P) P)

bel(H bel(H

fP) pP) auth(S, auth(H, P) P)

dispute
challenge correct/inform

-141-

represented P looks leading developed, more

in

surface

form

as something to

like:

I don't

have

to

do a

appropriate In to
the something in this are

as a response terms fit


deontic being room not the it and

something notion secondary


I (fP) of shall as

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

When examining refers allowed forbidden the speaker either to as to be in:

operator forbidden the doing to

something this bel(S an act room. fP) of

You

allowed cognitive is

enter state: that particular

communicates over place. P matters,

authority is it taking is

assumed this

forbidding state, to with

When considering to first P in the examine is which hearer that three

cognitive with is respect

important The to

possibilities party

authority. respect

neither case that then with the

an authority is If effectively the the

speaker forbidden.

asserting/informing is If an the authority hearer is of is

P is the

speaker hearer. then the wide

on P matters, an authority asking responses bel(S the fP), case

speaker to here. P

forbids matters, There to of the them

respect

speaker range cognitive bizarre. possible of

effectively possible state

a question by the

are

hearer some hearer

presupposed are that in rather it is

although where where from P is the

Firstly, that P is is possibility

believes party is P. it

forbidden, no different that For example:

neither the

a position The hearer of

authority, the

case

with hence

accepts hedged

forbidden,

is

a form

acceptance.

(45) safety (46)


When the we have is an

A:

I believe belts in the

it

is rear

now illegal of cars.

for

children

not

to

wear

B: Oh, yes,
speaker is

I think
an authority form respect the

you may be right.


with of to respect to P matters, if the is then hearer seen as

a rather authority and in

strange with fact

defiance. P, then

Whereas, the response state to or not. it is P the is

evasive because assumed The case is that

expressed with

cognitive respect

infelicitous can be

being to know

an authority whether the P is hearer is the

hearer

forbidden believes odd. of If

case P is

where

that the P being

necessarily accepts that

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-

distinction forbidden the given case is speaker above

between and to the

it hearer

not

necessarily that

being it is

the not The

case

that

is for

believing act of

necessary cognitive case.

perform

the the not

forbidding. rather than

state This

describes but

former impossible.

latter

unusual,

The 0(fP)) appear

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

When the the speaker's (47) (48)


B accepts was not If to

expressed I'm sorry sorry,

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

that party hearer and is

P is in

permitted, a position

then of with is

this

amounts with to P

a dispute to as

authority respect an

respect it with important table acts

Where

the

is where

an authority the speaker of bel(S

a correction, to P it for

authority The more in

respect cases 4.3. The last

becomes the speaker

a challenge state:

authority. fP) are

summarised

case

that the

shall

consider state: is

is

the

one pP). to be

in

which Once

the again

speaker this is

communicates very dependent If

cognitive upon who first

bel(S

considered of all, the if For _ the

an

authority by the bel(H is an

on P matters. hearer poss(pP)) authority involving only with

we consider the appears modal to to

responses state party

operators: be plausible

hearer neither

respect

P matters.

example:

(49) (50)
The case:

A:

I think

I can go into you can.


seems combined are of to

the

red

lane.

B: Yes,
bel(H necc

perhaps

-poss(pP)) and -necc that fP)

be with

of pP

no

significance. very unlikely. are if neither fP

The

two The pP. is

operators: only The in other hearer a position

look

operators state: of bel(H

any to

significance a dispute to P.

and party

leads with

authority

respect

(51) (52)
When the

A:

I think

I can go into that's


a position

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

relationships in figure 4.4. in

of

the

cognitive

state:

bel(S

pP)

are

examined by the

some

detail xP) which

the I

ramifications shall the

of

the

state another

speaker, namely want. form that

bel(S in

now consider speaker uses

category; operator, most to

a different

common do

of or

this wants do(H

arises a state P)) and

when to want(S on

the come P)

speaker about.

wants These

something as: this is the not want(S case

may be Note

described that in It that to want

respectively. P) or it P to are be for P. The

no

operators for P. the Nor

do(H to

meaningful. obligatory the speaker may

meaningful does be

speaker would it the

want

hearer it to hearer is

be meaningful hearer but in order does this to

want the

necessary to make the

that P possible, to

speaker what the

case, make

speaker

wants

for

hearer

do Q in

P possible.

The directives normally

expressed such realised first the

cognitive as request, by the

state: order

want(S etc.

do(H These and

P)) speech

occurs acts

in are

interrogatives case where state: with the speaker

Wh-questions. a (lets state surface call can it be to

Consider form a expressing

utters P)) this

cognitive states the

want(S respect may want the simple

do(H to to

request). for first to case, it out. is


the this

The hearer example, I shall do P then the hearer

compound, do P, is In but

hearer

do P and be able If the

consider this

cases. as:

hearer P)).

willing this

can be expressed the want

will(do(H want this

has accepted may also it


the

speaker's to

and will case,

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

acceptance different, necessary expresses as a refusal

poss(do(H possible the hearer

hearer

do P-a hearer serves

pre-condition the of state: the

do P). then

the

-poss(do(H request.

If it is

the

hearer

expresses that the

the hearer

state:

bel(H to

necc(do(H do P

P)))

then The

a statement

was going

anyway.

-144Table 4.4 bel(S

The Structural

Relationships

of

the

State

pP)

Speaker bel(S

State pP)

Hearer bel(h bel(H

State poss(pP)) fP)

Authority auth(S, auth(H,

Act hedged dispute P) P) challenge correction agreement

bel(H

pP)

accept

Table
Speaker want(S

4.5

Possible

hearer
Hearer

Responses
State P)) P))

to

want(S

do(H

P))

State 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 bel(H bel(H

-poss(do(H necc(do(H -O(do(H

P))) P))) P)))

bel(H

f(do(H

P)))

-145-

case state,

bel(H it

O(do(H is to P))) more do P, or bel(H

P))) likely

is

rather that

odd as an the hearer the

expressed would either state: do P.

cognitive make bel(H a

commitment will(do(H

by expressing that

cognitive going to

state

he was not P)))

The case that he is

-O(do(H no obligation the hearer

comes about to do P. It

when the may have under

hearer one of

feels two

under firstly

outcomes: to

by stating to grant but the

he is

no obligation Secondly, it the

do P effectively says he will

refuses do it bel(H is

request. sees to

hearer

anyway, p(do(H P)))

perhaps

as a favour. but reason in

The response bel(H for table f(do(H not 4.5.


The promises states: and speech worth It has would the that it). been be final to firstly secondly act is

appears it

be irrelevant, as a

P))) P.

important

because to the

can be used request are

doing

The responses

summarised

case do P. In

that this P)) will

shall case, that do Phe

consider the is

is

when is

the

speaker two to form so it do P of is

speaker under

expressing

O(do(S that in the he

an obligation P)). This

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

already) to that be they

hearer's by the case that

a statement will

belief default

speaker if

do P can says that

someone

something

If

the

hearer

believes P))))) that

that this the

it is

is

possible

for

the

speaker

to for

do P (bel(H the hand, speaker or to hearer if to

poss(do(S to the believe hearer

a necessary will is

precondition On the for it is

speaker that it

do P. not to

other the so,

believes

possible state that

do P his question
bel(H

response the

may be either felicity


P))) P))) regards was promised if the

perhaps
The case:

of

the

speaker.
odd. On the by other the hand hearer as hearer). a

necc(do(S

seems

the

case:

bel(H that the

-necc(do(S hearer what

expressed speaker's was good for

indicates favour

promise the

(assuming

that

The state: p(do(S -necc. say P))) If the remain but

bel(H bel(H

0(do(S -O(do(S believes

P))) P))) that

seems superfluous is P is similar to

as does bel(H the case for

hearer silent.

forbidden,

he may either

so or

-146-

Finally, P. In which

the case

hearer hearer

may believe simply

that does not

the

speaker the

will

not

do

the

believe

speaker.

4.4

Discourse

Pairs

and Cognitive

States

Having cognitive the objective


The speech cognitive response utterance second part. by act

analysed states of in this


part

the

relationships it actually
thesis is

between is

various to

presupposed restate what

some detail, exercise


of the

now time is.


that each effectively state of some

central (with state. the

(communicative) expresses shapes between the the the a

some possible It hearer. so that is this

exceptions) expressed acts first as part a form in

that bonding way

This the

pair,

constrains

The rival distinct different be

idea

of to

speech the parts

act

pairs of

linked adjacency parts

by these pairs. must

states It be

forms also

a has by

theory first

theory

and second The parts

which

uttered

speakers. and

(with

some notable responses are

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

example, (53) (54) A: B: I hate Mahler's works.


it

So do I.
relates saying: directly Yes, to I A's hate initial Mahler's utterance, works too. because Contrast

B's is this

response effectively with:

(55) (56) B's relate expressing relate relevant However be made. it

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

utterance hearer may

directly P)). to do not not the relate

(although

indirectly responses those that a fine

-bel(H directly but is

The distinction previous directly to is the utterance is theory in

between and

some cases this not

crucial

that but

distinction relate

When a response

relevant

does

-147-

to

the

previous of to

utterance, discourse

then

it

may be decoded with it.

correctly

by

observance tend various not

markers but

used

Preferred are that agree is

responses marked the with beyond in

be marked, For the

dis-preferred Yes, but ... but

options indicates does not

ways.

example:

hearer it. I the

acknowledges consider scope of


These need the there from (but state, response possible example hearer might only speaker state: dispute linking discourse are more if makes call be to be

speaker's study

viewpoint of the

a this

detailed work.

use of

markers

findings discussed states

give

rise

to

several it not

points should speech

and

questions clear Given have

that that that

further. themselves

Firstly are act

be made acts. I act of this

cognitive are several

existing another speech acts

speech such lead belief by the listing to

taxonomies, of speech

refrained Many

attempting not all) such that to

verbs. a

the or

expression want and

cognitive the it is For the we may if the the The So by larger units

as

a speaker can

constrains this way unit. P) P) and then

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

expresses (note Yes). that

state: hearer's other

bel(H

this

agreement like the Mm or

response hand,

something expresses -bel(H is the P)

state:

bel(S call

hearer

expresses a dispute. 1987).

then

we might for

structure (Schiffrin we can larger it it

foundation acts Note via that than to

an argument states of For these

speech units.

cognitive certain others. form

describe discourse is is to

desirable better

example, than

generally have a

considered dispute. Another the do calls In the expressed P

an agreement

case state:

that

is want(S

potentially do(H This P)). gives

more The rise considered further speech

serious hearer to what to

arises may not Leech be

out want

of to

(-want(H will flouting Six, of that

do(H

P))). and is

(1983)

generally this indirect this

undesirable. conflicts are acts as other in

Chapter basis

describe of, from

using acts. grouping

such There

a theory arise

questions this way:

idea

of

speech

1. Assuming given act some S2,

that speech then if

the act

acts

are

actually an adjacent act S2

speech

acts,

then speech

Si with

related has an

that

speech

adjacent

-148-

related sequence a This greater may

speech Si -->

act S2 -->

S3, S3 ? than as simple response the

is In

it other

possible words,

to can

infer

the

we impose pairs? discourse initiation

structure be that by For with possible, the hearer example, propositional up with

merely of

relational actual

an analysis idea of needs speaker content utterance the this

suggests followed somewhat. utterance follow extended when tends he to

speaker to may not Pi, P2. often (one be only but This

extended make may may indicates marker that an also be

this

a further but to end is

indefinitely, is be about used for

speaker sequence For

this

so).

example:

(57)

Coz there's for


of be

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

argument. related the claim

functionally for

supporting

evidence

and

counter-claim).

2.

The

acts act

that

have

been described An issue that is that link is

do

not

match is

exact why it act, may

speech is but be type for

categories. that, is it not. is

important

example

a question The reason to

accepted this

as a speech has come about to a

an answer because of

possible

a question whereas example, box behind look in

certain may

surface

form

(interrogative), forms. Its in as: the you to P); the For the I'll question find

answers

come in acceptable look these in

many different answer the box? as is

no is

a perfectly you of the me answers hearer do is carry The in way. P, a -

you and Did the box. All

as well to Can

might

be answers is? P))). (i. e.

Do you know where the newspaper all for

newspaper want(S relate provides in the

do(H

According to do(H with

my theory, in the first

three the to

directly the

case necessary that that

speaker the

information intimates he states lead to P

second of P.

hearer third

there he will achieved.

possibility out variety terms some of of

In the that

action

might

being when in

answers

make much more cognitive

sense states

examined this

presupposed

-149-

When propositional state B about

person content P,

makes they are

some

utterance some

with

expressing implicitly. a

cognitive

P,

either

explicitly they and they to must do

or

When a person that by to says making P to by P

makes

a response, about that P,

make

response directly relates B's here marked obvious implicitly his some

something an utterance the is

so either implicitly case

relates

P or in (The

relevance marked is

relationship,

which

attitude is where also). is that accept utterance new

linguistically. introduced, that this to may but pairing P, also

exception is not heavily more only in about

a new The in or the

topic reason making reject

this is

a response P but of

B may not include state analysis, acts to and

expression Pi. acts Primary the to On the into

a cognitive of this speech serve

proposition divide speech speech acts. into

basis primary acts and

we can

then

secondary

speech

introduce acts the to

a new proposition are used as

context,

secondary proposition acts

speech within do not

a response Primary and within need only

an established speech and

context. be speech use of

secondary discourse be marked,

need

adjacent act a

furthermore, perhaps by

a secondary stress or the

discourse

marker.

3.

Since,

not arises

all

speech at

act all

verbs do the

have been other

analysed, act

the verbs

question fit must addition in to be

how if

speech Also,

the given to

structures to where speech


of the

described exactly acts that

above?

some thought fit in, in

expressives I have

those

named as formal.
acts have such no place as: in

Firstly, declare, a into theory a

many

performative etc.

speech clearly We don't

excommunicate, of discourse

baptise structure. in in the

suddenly of a

launch

marriage appear

ce: _emony to fit

middle about (primary

conversation. We with can an

Expressives start off

just

everywhere. position)

a conversational

pair

expressive:

(58) Or they

I love

Shostakovich's in the

Tahiti

Trot, position: Tahiti

its

so witty.

may appear

secondary

(59) (60)

A: Do you know Shostakovich's B: I love it, its so witty.

Trot?

-150-

There formal:

is

another some state". a duty of

class these For to let

of acts

speech are

act

that with inform,

have

called in I am

concerned if I

"changes then

knowledge discharging which

example,

someone know about they are in

something, of

after this

everyone

may assume that If I warn obligation their These course acts in

possession then that if

information. fulfilled proceed come of express made that be that sense in with it. my

someone about to of let action, express

something, know

I have they may they be

them

then

something

bad

do not

cognitive

states, can then

information the recipient of

a way that of this

an assumption

information in

may be assumed to declarative make in most

possession they in

it.

They are to the

a sense

make a change the primary idea of act

world.

Such acts

position. there that being a primary to as that it is a an speech form a act and a I

From the secondary pointed fit into

speech out that

go together pairs such

pair,

traditional

question/answer answer generic answer is not term to pair possible of a in to the

this

scheme and the act type

reason is that that the states, between define

regarded for a

as a speech whole set of if

speech

acts

form

question. terms define pair to that of

Further, presupposed a formal enable

we consider cognitive

question/answer then the it is

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

Wierzbicka shall is the briefly order speech occupy

37 main groupings.

examine group, act the verbs first ask, The

containing appear slot

command,

demand, i. e. The also act but as The also tend

These would group to be

be mostly speech implore containing may be of

primary, act etc. pair. are speech primary, such

the

containing primary. as be forbid,

request, forbid group, refuse In fact

likely verbs could refuse permit to be

such also or

decline,

secondary. occupy the permit, the

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-

group, all, a but

this name

consists structures. and tends an B: merely tends some types

of

verbs For

that example, after

are

not

speech only

acts occurs Thus A: asserts

at as in

dispute

secondary to In

to

occur

an assertion. start P. with B has not

order P.

describe

argument, asserts asserting to explain of could

we may that not why act not

response, but This for the his

disputed in itself is After

A's a more this If verbs larger speech A

stance, dispute. important sequence, then given structures acts mostly such as

P is surface than

form other. as

speech be

exchange position,

described

a dispute. All either position the

defends in

we have argue

an argument. are

Wierzbicka's such as as argue _ee. is

group

or

name

secondary group that group, are point act many is

such

disag: acts and list,

Another the

tends including other that that yield

to

name verbs in has

secondary reprove

reprimand There the speech groupings or

rebuke. however together and these primary

groups she

Wierzbicka's attempted certain which to

group

verbs tend to

share verbs

properties, are either mostly

mostly

secondary.

4.

What

about are

meta-speech they

acts are
the

(introduced the
term idea of

briefly for their


is the a

above)? usage?
speech idea of: of

What exactly
A act

and what
act, act. as This Instead

rules
suggests

meta-speech a speech (Litman s1P s2P

about

comes the

from

meta-plans A: B:

1985).

normal

sequence

where epistemic, refers consider

sl

and s2 denote modal

states

of

P,

described a itself.

in

terms

of act

or deontic to the

operators, speech act

meta-speech For

more directly a typical

example,

insertion

sequence: the spanners?

(61) (62) (63) (64) Here question paired here. there

A: Where do you keep B: Do you mean for A: Yes. the stairs.

the

car?

B: Under are (1) is

two questions paired (3). act with

and two answer is (4)

answers,

except (2) the is

that is

and question for (2)

with (1) is

answer

There

no problem a question.

theory a meta-

a speech

forming

-152-

speech answer question. for the

act to

of the For

request meta-act this

for

clarification. and (4) an

(3) answer sequences

provides to are the

the main

reason,

insertion

no problem

theory.

Litman plans executing etc. speech speaker given obtain relating sequences. In and

(1985, states plans, the

p. 28) that

describes they deal parts

meta-plans with of acts or in

as plans

about plans, plans

introducing abandoning with

specifying

plans, deal

same way meta-speech modifying change 2) is part speech of acts

clarifying the

acts, to above,

some way forcing In is of the

the

utterance. act this us which idea to

sequence to act

a meta-speech It is

an attempt a speech insertion

clarification. speech act

that

enables

explain

4.5

The Thesis

Restated

In to be

the pulled

last

section,

several The Bach

ideas

were state (1979) to It

introduced theory builds

which on in

need the

together. theory of of

cognitive Harnish seeks structure. adjacent states acts described

inferential Three. speech relevance describes form of The acts

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

a discourse between cognitive between Chapter action to

relationship how certain

speech can that be

and explain the act

also a same verbs

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

Three (not arrive that that different justified there

specified at the

in right as

detail sort

allowed and a

somehow

cognitive in this under

states chapter three

acted the

preconditions. states Firstly uttering that

became be were certain the the were

cognitive headings.

effectively Secondly predict and to thirdly the the

the

speaker

were of

cognitive that cognitive directly

states might

allowed by

sort there

response were

be made that

states or indirectly).

hearer

(either

Having about formal

described speech

speech acts

act

verbs

in

this it

way and is still

forgetting possible to

and expressives,

-153-

live directives of

with

the and

framework commissives

provided and give

by

Searle,

i. e. of these

assertives, in terms

an account

cognitive

states:

i)

Assertives public his

speech

acts

in

which about which

the

Speaker

makes

knowledge speech

or belief acts in

some proposition. the Speaker makes

ii)

Directives public his

wants
-

or needs.
speech acts in which the Speaker makes

iii)

Commissives public his

intentions.

have

no wish

to

draw to

up long out permit

lists that is

of there looked

verbs would

to

fit

into

these

categories, from Searle's

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

my scheme, name For with to

speech relative that agree it

an action if

takes speaker

place asserts

another hearer on but the it act.

speech may surface names Answer At speech not

example the be

speaker's an assertive, an action in the

assertion. which relative same way.

Thus

may is, speech

appear a can position be

form-wise to another

and

described level may be to be of

the acts

discourse by

where

speech

acts relation, to acts,

are

relevant, which meaningful to state to the was

connected sufficiently

a relevance restrictive

thought of the

allow except

analysis that in

possibilities a speech act, act

between with

speech

uttering speech act is

a relevance or rejection when is and

relationship of two the

previous speech acts this The which response discourse of of discourse, describing

an acceptance On the other

previous speech describe acts. pair, as a of levels a means

implied. to pair speech to the the in

hand it

adjacent to

relate exchange primary serves to

same proposition terms act is the speech speech acts acts are not of the primary leading secondary act.

possible secondary act act in

speech the acts levels higher as

speech speech So at the

constrain primary

which

lowest At be useful

structure, speech discourse

may be thought

paired. to

structure.

This elements acts fit of

approach speech

gives acts

a basis the

for

explaining

the

relational how speech by

and at structure.

same time The picture

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

presented would structure. speech one Sinclair in acts be

this

theory

in to

terms also then

of

existing it in

speech terms

act of

interesting The fit in by question with Sinclair

examine is of

how does discourse

the

pairing structure

a theory and of

described and Chapter

Coulthard? discourse of a structure was level necessarily one an level up

Coulthard Two and to acts.

model consisted acts, At the

hierarchical not

from with they by is

lessons speech describe a response not The and the to from Sinclair out

which level

were of

moves, of

a sequence move of the with line

consisting an optional with act act the (as the

initiation move. model as as of the the the

feedback speech act act act part to is

described initiation response. structure dialogue in line

above. move According is studied with the missing by

primary secondary Burton open and

speech speech

would would feedback opposed and this

(1981), dialogue Coulthard), here.

classroom broadly

ideas

presented

It might pair. existing hierarchy, It with

is

fairly

easy

to

see why,

in

a classroom to the greatly at

situation

there response

be an additional So the structure of

move attached presented discourse. acts have to pair model. is

initiation out higher to play. act pairing of

not

line in

with the

theories speech is the also

Of course, no direct equate which the is role

levels

possible

speech at the

idea of the

adjacency analysis pair

heart (1973) are:

conversational an adjacency i) ii) iii) iv)

Schegloff of

and Sacks

defined

as a sequence

two utterances

That

adjacent produced ordered typed, particular by different as a first so that second


act pairing and are

speakers pat a and a second first part part requires a

particular

part.
theory also speech They fulfils acts may of form course Secondly, they are ordered these criteria. of

The Firstly two by

speech the

primary which acts different

secondary adjacent.

a sequence be separated they as

utterances meta-speech by

(insertion speakers.

sequences). Thirdly

are a

produced

-155-

first

part

and a second position. require

part,

because they secondaries.

there are

is

a primary because act

and certain pairing

secondary primaries theory dispreferred

Finally, certain

typed

The speech for

also

provides seconds).

some

explanation

preferred

(and

Conversational alternative shall examine theory of

analysis indirect speech this

also speech acts

attempted acts. and In pull

to

provide Six, into

an I the speech of

Chapter them of indirect

indirect in partly are P)) to

framework acts will

described rest states do(H help

chapter. notion (for

The theory that example: P)))

on the

certain bel(S

pairings

cognitive P)

undesirable and -want(H

P) and -bel(H many indirect

or want(S acts In

do(H

and that arising.

speech

prevent

disputes

from

Chapter act

Five,

I shall form, and the used in

consider

the

relationship

between form and

speech and deontic used in

and surface act type logics itself.

concentrating relationship this chapter

on common sentence between and the modal alethic auxiliaries

speech

modal language

-156-

5.

From Speech

Act

to

Utterance

5.1

Introduction

The

previous to the of pair

chapter speech

described acts of

how cognitive and in

state doing

elements a

can be used theory in terms for

together speech acts

so provide structure

integration

and discourse

sequencing this

and relevance chapter to firstly is to

relationships. look at surface forms and their form to look might for

The aim of linguistic be chosen to

components for

describe act,

how a surface and secondly in the previous it is

a particular the

speech theory

evidence In to The relate

support Four, acts

described forward of the the

chapter. possible states. want, cognitive is to a try set to will types or

Chapter speech in

I put because

idea

that

presupposed a

cognitive belief, to this there

speaker

uttering hearer

something in turn of this

expresses must respond

intention state. of This

and the gives to

us some idea In to

why for chapter,

example

responses the of

a question. states firstly, relationship modal

I propose forms. of states,

relate consist

cognitive two parts, possible of deontic

actual

linguistic

This

an examination to cognitive and their have been

sentence

and their

and secondly to the

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

relationship used in the

operators

earlier

out

this

exercise,

I am accepting the main

that point to to a

it

is be

at put

incomplete that certain their For between an assertion a request

analysis. speech definition it

However acts is is

may be considered bound up in with principle by

be

"base

because type.

particular to make a form, form, the (or types. the main the a same

example,

possible

an assertion is is made using made, form. should of

and a request the at I declarative

surface sentence using base sentence but type

least suggest to acts in the

directly, that basic of sorts,

sentence speech lead that knows (once to acts

correspond speech

taxonomy

by uttering that it will in

a sentence not its

declarative as for

form, example, The

be interpreted direct

again,

interpretation).

-157-

applies interpreted called

to

an interrogative as an assertion questions could is not not

sentence, (I in shall

which consider

is

not the

going case

to of

be so

declarative The same This

this of

section). a speech it act type realised normally such by as a

be said

boast. particular

dependent type have

upon

being

sentence they a good

(although to, for

boasts example:

employ I

declaratives might vulgar buy

do not second of

Do you know where be a rather means).

hand Rolls wealth to

Royce?, someone of

may seem to more

expression the sensitive the

modest

Furthermore, is way not. highly that Leech the A:

distinction to context

between

a boast

and a statement considerations and a two request in

say a is

and cultural an assertion of

distinction (1983) garden gives of

between an one of

example them: kept the lawn

Japanese

ladies

discussing (1) (2) A response (3) might

You have

a beautifully at all,

garden. is very untidy.

B: Oh no, of the

not form: we try in

B: Well,

to Britain,

keep

it but

looking in

neat. society it would

be acceptable

Japanese

be regarded I assertion assert, maxim

as boasting. that uses is a speech pride act such as boast is not thus a cit. )). with an so much entailing pragmatic an

suggest that but (perhaps

as a mode of an assertion

achievement, contravenes (Leech will op.

rather

that

Leech's part modal

maxim of of this

modesty section

The examination to the

second of

be concerned possible previous includes

auxiliaries operators theory

and their used is that used second in it in part

relationship chapters. an idea very

modal

and deontic part of this

Another similar to to

preference the pair. most

organisation suitable

conversational to some first

analysis part of of I is

determine

an adjacency discourse have noted discourse Having briefly In generation

This which omit, I, based

necessarily is a highly the includes

would

include

an analysis topic, which markers a possible

markers, to

specialised use of

chosen in

although, which

discourse on

Appendix grammar

a section and discourse

on speech forms

acts

markers. I then

examined

sentence act of

and modal

auxiliaries,

discuss the final

speech part

taxonomies. this is chapter, based on the I proposed speech act a speech recognition act

schema,

which

-158-

schema serve for

of

Bach and Harnish for

(1979), explaining

except

that

it

is

intended is

to

as a framework a particular speech If speech to

how a surface is incomplete, in

form as it

chosen excludes

speech acts act

act. will is in are

This

indirect

which theory

be discussed be regarded

Chapter

Six. then there it. act

to

as valid, to of

ought For then

be some evidence if there

grammatical three to basic

structure categories basic (1973) types there

support speech of

example, perhaps

there According

ought to namely:

be three et al.

sentence four basic

structure. types of

Quirk

are

sentence, (note:

declarative al. prefer is used

statements,

interrogatives, type, here and

commands rather not

Quirk

et

command as a sentence as a sentence statements. is always present type

than

imperative, act verb)

a--id it

as a speech In declarative of

and exclamatory the subject

statements certain for elliptical example: through


that

(with

the

exception the John


are

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.

iii) Examples (5a) (5b) (5c) Commands verb is in

The use of of these are:

rising

intonation.

Will

John

leave leave leave

today? today? today? that generally have no subject and whose

Who will John are the will

sentences imperative

form:

(6) Leave this


Finally, initial exclamatory phrase that

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

requests verbs such other

equated etc. half function

Exclamatory way between more like

on and

the

questions,

to

-159-

5.2

The Four

Basic

Sentence

Types

Quirk i)

et

al.

(op. cit.

p. 166) verb verb verb

give

seven

basic John

clausal is in is

forms: the kind. house.

SVA (subject SVC (subject SVO (subject SVOA (subject

adverbial): complement): object): object

ii) iii) iv)

John

John met Mary. adverbial): John met Mary the dance. held the at

verb

v)

SVOC

(subject

verb

object

complement):

John book

tightly. Mary the

vi)

SVOO (subject

verb

object

object):

John gave book.

vii) Of the

SV (subject elements act used

verb): above, are it

John the

laughed. ones that are significant for

speech is to

identification because the in

subject,

verb

and object. the speaker else. type of is

The subject referring is

important himself,

denotes or

whether

hearer

someone or for instance,

something the

The verb verb

important significant, be of

many aspects; tense is also

may be seem to an

significant

and auxiliary they will

verbs

particular analysis.

importance,

so much so that

be given

extensive

The second can be subdivided i) Yes/No rejection ii)

sentence into

category three

is

the

interrogative

form

which

classes: which expect only affirmation or

questions:

as a response. that expect an item of information to be

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

Yes/No the left? orientation, negative indicates

questions subject Yes/No in answer. that the On and

are using

formed

by

putting

the e. g.

operator Has or the

before train negative or

intonation. also can have a

questions other

positive towards train is yes

be biased Has the the answer

a positive left but as: is already? seeking

example: thinks hand

confirmation. drive but straight? obviously

a question as: way, I it

such

Can't were able

you to, of

could you can't.

restated In this

thought acts as

you

a combination

-160-

an you

old

assumption cannot). as why with If

(that

you

can as

drive) a speech

with act

a new assertion category then forms it is such on the state his is a

(that fixed to yes/no hand

question in are

structure explain questions this

suggested there

Searle's different

theory, surface orientation, for the the

difficult as other

positive/negative poses using no problem a form where believed possible some not

dichotomy by having

cognitive

approach. belief Can't you

Because, that drive force, states. -P

speaker P as only of in to the

expresses a form give like: an

previously it is

straight? but also

illocutionary cognitive

give

indication

presupposed

Yes/No own belief

orientation while at

questions the same time orientation

allow seek

the

speaker

to

express of it. as:

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

superordinate versa. identifiable The

clause use of

positive questions

forms:

i)

Positive e. g.

+ Negative his

with work,

rising d6esn't

tone. he? expectation) tone. he? expectation) tone. d6es he?

He likes

(positive ii) Positive e. g.

assumption + Negative his

+ neutral with falling doesn't

He likes

work,

(negative iii) Negative e. g.

assumption + Positive like

+ neutral with his rising 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-

There declarative identical rising questions examined

is

also

an exceptional e. g. You've sentence

type got

of

yes/no it with that are a

question you it uses set these of ?

called It a final yes/no will

a is

question, to a declarative

except there auxiliaries,

intonation. that when I operate look

Additionally with at modal modal verbs.

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,

an interrogative where, how, why. for pizza example: would you or

or Q-word: Alternative

who/whom, questions

whose,

may either

questions, you like for type

example: spaghetti?

a wh-question, (9) Which

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

The next most it that may

major

common category

command differs

a statement It

has no subject modal be auxiliaries

and has an imperative do not occur at

may be noteworthy commands. as Commands The is

toned is except

down by politeness implied a few cases, in the such

markers meaning as:

such of

please.

subject absent

usually in

a command and so

(11)
or

You,

be quiet!

(12)Somebody A first and person adding

close

the

door. by placing Negative of et. the al. let in front may Don't be go!

imperative the subject: don't to create

can be achieved Let onto me see. the front Quirk

commands sentence: call

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

wh-questions that there

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

formulae: (15) There are

certain the

wh- questions

house? exclamatory archaic types and as: additionally

some irregular still it this employ to

some forms (16)

elements

such

say we lost. survey is it to is identify possible the to basic match sentential speech act

The point structures types onto


The firstly types explain structures various a study looking acceptance This markers, such limits. an section

and to them.

see whether

evidence to see

that whether

I it

am seeking is possible

in

this to

chapter match basic to range able to

is

threefold: speech be able sentential how instance, I view way will be that marked. discourse that the act to

onto in

sentential terms exists. of speech

structures act theory I are will evidence of

and

possibly the be

why to

of

Secondly, operators auxiliaries

hope

show for

cognitive of modal for or

communicated, be necessary. to support is in

here,

Thirdly the some

linguistic rejection should for ideally

propositions involve mentioned extend the

an examination previously, thesis I beyond

of

however examination

reasons would

decided

reasonable

5.3

Speech

Acts

and Sentential

Structure

In questions section play. clearly cognitive more cit. If

this

section, and

I will

concentrate

on

interrogatives, until auxiliaries first hence of the the have all,

whnext to then

commands, consider simple wants be:

leaving the yes-no

declaratives role modal

when I will we consider the speaker state

questions

to

know something, want(S to know(S P)).

underlying there al. are (op.

might that

However Quirk et or

complex p. 192)

forms

have

be considered. with

consider A question

questions has a positive an assertive 'at

positive orientation, An example rather a

negative has use of or bias

orientation. what a Quirk et

when it is than the

al. that

call

form. least one'

quantifier For

suggests

'some

none'. whereas

example, remains anyone

someone neutral. come last last

gives For night? night?

a question example:

positive

anyone Did Did

(17) (18)

someone com'

-163-

(17)

remains

neutral, for

whe. eas with

(18)

has a positive orientation the speaker

orientation. in believes to to terms that know phrase words, be true,

The of P for the the but I

explanation cognitive might certain question speaker want is which provides acknowledges Negative Quirk once et al. to firstly is is be

questions is case, P is using the fairly i. e.

a positive If

states the that by

simple. bel(S then

poss(P)) it

and wants

case,

seems natural In that of using other

positive saying,

orientation. I think

effectively sure. it

P might positive speaker state, form that

know for that generally the the

The advantage seeks agreement to

orientation and hearer it

between

accepted speaker hearer with

be a desirable a surface with hand it but words, that

secondly explicitly to P matters.

as an authority on the p. 193) other

respect is

orientation, (op. that confirm P) but bel(S Once again, the speaker cit.

more complex, that the

as

state,

implies

speaker that -P the now is a a

believed to

P was the it. In

case,

now has evidence the speaker

and wants state: holds in fact

other

once held and -P

bel(S the state:

now suspects poss(-P)) there seeks

P may not to

be true that having

and wants are good

confirm for

true. form: state,

reasons to

such in

surface cognitive same time


A with similar

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

orientation, that show

disbelief.

The next Tag questions main tone sugar, states, believes i)

main are

category also

of

interrogative by Sadock Positive plus explain a

is (1974).

the

tag There with e. g.

question. are a You four rising take

analysed above). assumption

types(described is a reported don't we that I you. should P is believe it.


that

+ negative question. this in

In

order

to the

terms where

of the

cognitive speaker

consider the case:

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)

I know that duty to tell

P is

the

case, it.

and I believe (inform).

that

it

is

my

you about

-164-

iv)

believe

that

P, but

I know that but

it

is

something

on

which it v) I is

you are correct that

an authority, or not. P, but

you can tell i). it is

me whether

(Tag question I know that

believe

something that

on P?

which

you are

an authority, iii).

so can you confirm

(Tag question Tag believes on P; question that thus i), P is it

appears true, but

to

be the

case the

where is of

the

speaker

knows that

hearer

an authority belief and

can be explained distinct ii) is from

by a combination other cases. + positive with

authority Tag e. g. (19) This whether question


Tag expectation all distinct

and is question

negative

a rising

tone,

You don't that is

take the

sugar,

do you? believes It that is -P and wants form to of know tag

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.

Declarative similar appear conclusion. the form

questions to where

e. g. type i)

You take or is type

sugar? iii)

appear tag to

to

be very and

linguistically to be used

questions be) a

the

answer

(assumed hand are

foregone of

Wh- questions want(S know ... form . is

on the

other

epistemically

An interesting (20) It invites Didn't the believes necc(bel indicate

the

exclamatory

question,

e. g.

she sing hearer's in.

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

strongly and device and is words, saying: to question is bel(S to

speaker

H P)). that the

An exclamatory speaker but not believes a negative

something In in other effect for you but

seeking by making

agreement,

an exclamatory strongly It might in

statement this and it

the

I believe it. also for rather rather

would

be unwise disagreement, using

be a means of dramatic Didn't He did that speech effect

avoiding of

there

a certain example: deadpan: than

exclamatory more is effect of

statements, than the

he do well well. act But theory.

has this

far

an issue

stylistics

one of

-165-

The al. and not down op. an

other cit.

major p. 200), verb.

sentence of It which is

category the

is

the

command form modal has

(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

Commands serve it is assumed the

epistemically that the

hearer

out

satisfies

want. a subject in for example:

Commands may have (22) You, be quiet. have

They may also Sinclair (23) (teacher use of and You,

a subject call back

when they nomination,

serve

in e. g.

the

function

that

Coulthard at the to e. g. open the these

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

(listed the other

as such

by Quirk types us.

(op.

cit.

sentence

category

as commands)

e. g.

(25) This

Do go with to

appears

function that the its

as an order primary

without

the to

element be a form that

of of the e. g.

authority, politeness hearer

except where

use now appears a strong indicate

speaker

expresses perhaps to

desire hospitality,

perform (26)

some action, another of

Do have

cointreau. now seems rather archaic, e. g.

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

example that of the

interrogatives thinks cognitive think give

explained an

a theory

speech

without corresponding a verb, are forms theory, illocutionary that range are of

examination acts. If

underlying act in of

we simply then asking this

e. g.

question, ways chosen examining force, of

there

so many may be by

questions the act, in

surface state its

to

represent a speech but also

question. not

terms act

cognitive us reasons

states for the

presupposed basic sentence

by

the types.

speech

-166-

5.4

Modal

Auxiliaries

and Cognitive

States

The hence markers evidence deontic verbs. explain that

cognitive

state

theory are

uses bound

deontic to it be is for of the

and

modal

operators, as surface them as

modal of for and Of

auxiliaries cognitive the modal course of the states. cognitive logic any

important not the easy to

However state theory because of of of

use

simple existence

reason of be able and requires wrong.

that these to one the After

arose theory

speech sentential the cannot language

acts

ought

to

some includes of

variety

structures, (or

an explanation modal only is to auxiliaries explains

existence be totally in

existence) all, verbs, section the to types explain if

a theory then will of it be

usage The

terms taken

of

lexical in this and order or

missing examine

something. the modal in

approach

auxiliaries which states example they they in the can

semantically appear in

sentence what It are sort has

structure of cognitive noted from

are

conveying section

signalling. that modals

been

for

previous

missing

commands.

Will

The future

modal tense.

will

may, Quirk et.

according al. neutral" is will

to (op.

some, cit.

be used p. 47)

to

denote will

the as

describe

denoting (1969) function tomorrow form of

a "colourless, state of is will to that the there modal

future. tense

However in such

Boyd and Thorne and that will the the

no future in

English as He

sentences

arrive habitual

make a prediction. a simple will cross to al. the (op. habitual her

They also form, legs

dissolve e. g.

into She

(28) This reading. modal will: i) is

while She crosses give

reading. her legs for while the

equivalent Quirk et

sentence cit.

p. 55)

four

meanings

Willingness. have another

Used in cup of
Mainly

polite

requests,

e. g.,

Will

you

coffee?
used time. in the first person, e. g. I'll

ii)

Intention. see you when

have

iii)

Insistence.

e. g.

He will

keep

going,

whatever

you say.

-167-

iv)

Prediction. prediction: in will talk the last

Quirk specific act. gold. if the

et

al.

define e. g.

three

forms will

of die

prediction, Timeless Habitual you don't main verb the

The hero e. g.

prediction, prediction, stop plays him.

Aqua regia He will

dissolve for person the hours of modal. if

e. g.

Clearly, the meaning (29) and the

the of

some role

in

defining

Consider you ask.

sentence

I will

help forms help help

variant

(30) (31) The

You will He will person the first

if if

[he]

asks.

you ask. meaning person the to the first and to third have it

second In

has a different and third

person. the has mainly person, will between modal, will. for

sentence in the of

appears second intention

willingness the in insistence the first

interpretation, meaning. person, speak

whereas The expression insistence

person

occurs for any He

however

can occur

e. g. keep

I will going,

my mind. you say.

You will Note is denoted

leave that by

immediately. the stress difference on

whatever and

intention i. e. insistence

insistence in in the forms first of

the

person prediction

is

marked are of the

by stressing no importance differences

The differences this study a specific appears as the event to

first

and second

denote law.

between

and a universal be a linguistic and other and still case to for its

There of will

difference uses. arrive For at

between other the uses, same intention. request:

the it

use is

denoting to this it Will omit is is

intention will the

possible whereas example, (32) as (32a): or its

meaning, For

not

use denoting the polite

possible you have

rephrase

another

cup of

coffee?

Please

have

another prediction:

cup of

coffee?

use to (33a): (33b): (33c):

indicate

The hero Aqua regia He talks to

dies

in

the

last gold.

act.

dissolves for hours if

not

stopped. e. g. I'll denote given see you when I have intention, above. neither However it

But time., it might

when used it

indicate

intention,

cannot

be re-phrased example as: of

and still insistence

seems can the be paraphrased

-168-

(34): but the

He keeps

going,

whatever

you happen

to

say. is is will arguably x). is This to

meaning intention perhaps intention

seems slightly (i. e., that the

different. I know that principal his use of uses


notion make

Insistence intention the modal

observed suggests denote

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

Lyons modality, context something the current be of

suggested appears wo:: lds in

and

this

some The world

sense operator that

a possible possible one. true

model. a future will

being

accessible intention the

However in a future

may describe world accessible

something world.

More it is

importantly, examining first In (but

from the

the

point

of

view

of in

speech

act

theory with part of a

worth In the

operator will

will

conjunction on the it

person. the

person the third

denotes person the

intention

speaker.

however, habitual

represents In the that

prediction person represent i) ii) iii) The will first do it

may also

denote

form). states

second these

denotes are: will

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

will(do(H, will(do(x, of P, these

I am making But the other the

statement Taking can be forms dealing

intention. third to as: person blur It to will

so obvious. case

first,

predictive If we easy

and habitual consider to

some extent. ... however form then it

non-personal we are about

is

see that talking is being e. g. it of the

predictions, a habitual I It

whether

we are

a prediction If

depends

upon what to the

described.

example (35)

am referring will rain in

weather,

Aberystwyth,

usually weather, hand the

does. I am making if I talk of about that a

Then I am not prediction an animal for


(36) A prediction problems for

talking

abo". t a habit

based say,

on experience. then it is easy

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

on known third person.

habits.

-169-

The (37) indicates

second You will

person leave It

is

more tricky,

a sentence

such

as:

immediately, is worth examining how this differs from

insistence. as:

a command such (38) and a Leave

immediately, such you


issued

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

command out, that is by

anticipation hand insistence

on the the an saying: that in

hearer invocation You any the the the it is

reluctant of authority do ... P

to

command. done,

something is indicating done to there

will future

the

speaker have

a by the

world is to basic indication world. that

must

been

a sense, of between

speaker hearer three an

invoking do P.

authority Hence of the is be the will. speaker used in

counter is a in a

not

consistency the first

meanings that When it P will with of the

When used has the made third

person, to it acts it an

commitment person, and

do P in as is

a future

a prediction used in

true

a future person the can of

world it

when

conjunction part the to

second that P)

indicates do P in in of the the

insistence world. state auxiliary

on the Hence, theory will.

speaker will(x,

hearer be the used use

a future cognitive modal

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

a question the the to use of first be

as in will person answered

the in it by

form: this is a the

The person question. internal

affects with meant

When used question

I the

be a party third

to

this? it becomes a question of a third

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)

Ability. your mind

For to

example: it.

You can translate

it

if

you

set

ii) iii)

Permission. Theoretical get blocked

For

example:

Can I leave For the example:

now? The snake pass can

Possibility. by snow in

winter. poss(e). Can I can onto in the the lift table, may be the He

Ability used chair can lift the with

can be represented all the three table, onto persons

by the to

operator

denote the

ability: chair

onto

You can lift the to table. denote

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

operator: poss(P). form first

Theoretical is it go now? an

represented in the

Permission person, Can P whether the In as to the is I

interesting is treated as

case: an

interrogative request as: want(S it for do(H is is

informal

permission: P)) unclear questioning permission. content Will you where

This for is

may be pP. being In

represented the made, but it upon Is he second or

schematic a request

person the

speaker not

hearer's third the

ability, person speaker to it

does the able

denote

depends means:

propositional to do P? or

whether him

give

permission

do P? For

example:

(42) (43) In the

Can he go now? Can he juggle declarative of permission: unstressed for is the third

(Request with three the

Permission) skittles? (Questioning use of can to. ability). denotes In a the The

form,

unstressed

statement second

I can leave can denotes person. between this

any time permission:

I want

person,

You can go.

same applies There possibility,

a distinction consider

theoretical when examining

possibility the modal

and may.

I shall

MAY

Quirk i)

et

al.

(op.

cit.

p. 53) For

give

two uses

for

may: out until eleven

Permission. o'clock.

example:

You may stay

ii)

Possibility.

For

example:

It

may be a rough

passage.

-171-

However, possible (44) This should

there intention:

appears

to

be a third

use,

may can

also

denote

I may come and visit be considered as: to to

you tomorrow. be distinct P))). may is to a polite be less form correct, but may as from possibility and can

be represented When opposed however still pP. to used

poss(will(do(S indicate is

permission, generally to

can which usage more I can form,

considered blur the

modern remains

has tended It

distinction, by the the first

formal.

can be represented permission rather odd: in

operator person

Whereas

declarative (45) In the the first

... I may appears

may denote

I may go any time person person You it it

I like. denotes possible intention. In

more usually denotes

second (46)

permission: me any time you like. denote

may come and visit it also

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

The more normal person: (48) If first

He may be rather the is


I

annoyed

with

you. interrogative forms, then in

we consider person it

use of may in used

exclusively
now?

for

permission:

(49)

May

leave

It

is

also (50)

used

in

this

way in to used

the leave in

third now? the

person:

May he be permitted appear form. following example and actual pass to be

It

doesn't

second

person

in

the

interrogative The between

should

make

clear

the

distinction

theoretical The snake

possibility: blocked by snow in the winter.

(51)

can get

(Spoken

on a fine

summer's

day)

Theoretical -

Possibility.

(52) M62. There We is

The snake (Actual a similarity about

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

Aqua Regia can link the

has the

Hence perhaps

we

theoretical reason

explains

rather

SHALL

Quirk i)

et

al.

(op.

cit.

p. 54) on the For

list part

three of the

uses

of

the in

modal the

shall. and his

Willingness third due. person.

speaker

second what is

example:

He shall

receive

ii)

Intention first course.

on the

part

of

the

speaker, I shall let

only

used

in

the due

person.

For

example:

you know in

iii)

Insistence exercise good order

or 35b.

legal

injunction. shall

For

example: the

We shall property

do in

The tenant

maintain

throughout.

The speaker appears something, done. P this gets

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

an expression least the

the

speaker's to see that the

intention something to of

at

intention

The speaker done form Intention

effectively perhaps to part of the

expresses explains the the

intention usage

see that shall persons. in

and this is

why the second speaker, above, or

restricted on the

and used in

third in this

the form

first it is is verb For shall that the best

person

only

merely

confirms with will. shall

analysis

interchangeable marked (i. e. example: receive the subject denoted ... subject will by the

Insistence, in conjunction is the

legal with of a

injunction, dynamic

use of the

a verb The In

where tenant the

subject

agent

some action). to You

shall

maintain case it is

former

... insistence In

as opposed or

injunction case, is

do such be the

and such beneficiary epistemic

a thing. of

the

latter Insistence want(S

some action. want:

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

should: always cover

Obligation your mouth

and

should

when you cough. certain happened the first

They should expressions: to you. person only:

be home by now. I am sorry that

ii)

Putative this

use after have use in a larger

should

iii)

Contingent to move to

I should

love

house. Should you change your mind,

iv)

Formal just let of

Real

conditions.

me kno-T. view of cognitive states, There is a only very the first strong regardless of obligation use link of

From appears between person: which

the

point to the

have first

any importance. use and the should ... by: O(do(x represent all

obligation point P)). necessity than denote for must. to

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

seems weaker be used to ought

obligation, or is a

necessity necessity separate

or

The use of with ought

obligation there

appears case:

should, to have that as if

however finished "they" the

by now. are obliged to be finished is being be

specifying almost of

obligation previous to

operator example up

applied expressed that they

affairs. situation

Thus the is obliged

could result

This finished. be

yield

the

Must necessity. (55) An example (56) These

used of

to

denote

obligation is: 11 O'Clock.

or

compulsion

or

An example You of must necessity must

obligation

be home before is: be something by:

There

wrong.

cases 0(... )

can be represented and necc(P).

5.5

The Logical

and Pragn-itic

Use of

Modal

Auxiliaries

The difficulty a logical to unravel.

with

modal function

auxiliaries (Leech the

is 1987)

that which state

they is

have difficult

both

and pragmatic If we are to

accept

cognitive

approach,

then

-174-

it

seems reasonable cognitive from

to

assume that that to

modal

auxiliaries forms, must also

are but be

used

to

communicate that give goes

states act the

have modal form

any theory able to

speech of of

surface

some explanation The main uses

pragmatic auxiliaries

use of are

modal to

auxiliaries. ability, willingness,

modal

indicate

permission, intention, If and

theoretical insistence, we look first then in the

possibility, prediction, of all the case of all of at

possibility, obligation

and necessity. theoretical possibility using situation tends to the or relate

ability,

possibility poss(p) P)) in animal Babies

these of

may be represented some state Ability or

operator poss(do(x to

case

some action. e. g. walk by the

human or (57) months,

performance, can usually

time

they

reach

fifteen

or

(58) But

The

leopoard

can climb

trees. inanimate possibility objects, the becomes

when we come to between e. g. (59) The

sentences ability

describing and theoretical

distinction blurred,

lamborghini that is the

sports

can do between what is both

150 ability being

m. p. h. and theoretical described. the operator It

This

suggests

distinction upon to

possibility therefore poss(... )

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

intention, possible what I will use

myself. may also e. g.

of call

the

operator

hedged

predictions,

(61) This i) ii) iii) iv) Note the

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:

Hedged predictions: use of the modal of

The second

group

meanings

-175-

and prediction. (62) An example (63) Finally, (64)


The be

An example leave

of

intention morning.

is

I will of

tomorrow is car

insistence

You will

move that of

now. is:

an example It will rain


of as: on does I to will

prediction tomorrow.

representation represented I insist

intention

is: However,

will(do(S insistence case, secondly on the if about e. g.

P)).

Prediction is more I believe to of convey the it I leave tricky.

can

will(P). something not not want

When the fact In

being to

the

firstly I want part we the

that the

hearer that order

do P, a refusal

accept

hearer. with the

understand when will I make

this

better,

compare hearer

prediction: modal auxiliary

a prediction

unstressed,

(65) sell-by
Whereas, conveyed appears purpose that hearer. the

You will date.


when with to be the I the the stress

fall

ill

tomorrow

because

that

was way past

its

insist, prediction same

will is:

is

always will(do(H

stressed. P)), is modal used, is to or

What will(H except convey part

is P). that the of

being That the fact the

when

insistence on the accept

of

indicator will not

speaker

a refusal

on the

Permission may. can.

may be indicated is that as :

by the more

modal formal

auxiliaries

can

and than leave is a

The suggestion Examples you such like

may is

or more polite You can there

You may leave

now and

whenever pragmatic politeness

may be represented that needs in

as pP.

However I

aspect in its is be

consideration. Chapter Six.

shall

consider

own right usually

Necessity which can

indicated as are I will

by the necc(P). used

use of This to

the

modal us

must, with

represented modals

leaves

obligation. ought, to denote (66) Or to put (67) Ought (1975) is should

Three

commonly deal to

denote first:

obligation: must is used

and must. Must

with state leave e. g.

must

0(P). You told

may be used

obligation, before ten

e. g. o'clock.

me that

you must

someone under You must

obligation, before ten

be back are

o'clock. however. of White what

and should that a set

much more problematical can be defined If

suggests in

oug'zt of

as descriptive I say:

owing

circumstances.

-176-

(68) Then hearer, missing rather what it

You ought is is from being

to

(should)

finish is

your

Ph. D. that is

write-up. good for that pragmatic the is

expressed suggests

something (op. cit.

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

auxiliaries, possible to are conjunction to think

their provide used. with in terms If

uses some we the of

and sort

relation of account the of action and request little the

cognitive of the the

auxiliaries in

consider person the

use

of

modal then

sentence, that hearer. permission sense for is

possible and the

being

denoted

interaction the party, permit May you complete uses

between speaker but himself ... picture of it to This of modal

speaker may makes do form the

For

example for him that us the

requesting or the is for hearer no up form

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.

Consider and permission the speaker or to

the in

modal

auxiliary

can: sentences.

its It

main is

uses not

are

ability for the for (for non-

declarative himself (to

meaningful

grant

permission, the hearer). and such has little the case of: in is ability

but It

he can do so for is also is possible

hearer the all

a third to

party state that

speaker three

such

an act

permissible with the

persons). pronoun, It (Your

Permission except dog) in

meaning

personal (69) The possible persons. used to

can run denote to the

around ability

our also in

garden. consistent, any it of the tends it is three to be out and

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

When consistent permission, no sense

in

the

interrogative When the

form,

its

use

is

though

pragmatic. the to the first

speaker person, to grant

requests it makes himself ask it

he can do so in for the therefore speaker in

and third hearer it

ask the second to ...?

permission, if is permission that the

person,

may be used to aspect of

has been granted question: Can you

do P.

The pragmatic is used

sometimes

as a request

-177-

and speech

I shall acts.

consider

this

in

Chapter

Six

when I examine

indirect

May is permission. possibility It is

used In (or

in the

the

declarative person described

form it

to is

denote used

possibility only to

or denote

first

as I have to ...

earlier,

possible their that

intention). of

interesting I can to and it

compare

can and may in to state

use as modals

permission. permission meaning If I am able hand, checking does has modals In permission, meaningful hence there to

may be used

I have been given

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

permission see that it to in the

do P does has the the is

ability to

but

it he the

mean making the are ability used

possible do so). way.

hearer perhaps

do P (assuming reason why

the

this

the

interrogative because request the that

form, hearer the person in

may is the

only

used

to it

request is not and

becomes hearer

authority, himself form. with a model

grant

permission

is

no second of

interrogative conjunction containing caused modal by the

The analysis and hearer to the reduce logical using

modals

of

speaker seems between

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

indicate (1987) for

that

their

use is gives a is

very very based Jewish the

example her culture

account from However, discourse markers

of

their

use,

although type of

account (The

one particular as I observed analysis

when analysing and to might

some of

(Sinclair have some role markers stated

Coulthard play. have In in an

1975), order speech to act

seem to that

the

part

discourse what

summary of point. pointed act theory to

has been

seems

appropriate

Having of speech

several (Chapter

deficiencies One), I went

with on to

the

Searle the

model role

examine

-178-

that

speech

act the the state

theory two idea (or

might rival of

have

to

play

in

discourse In act Within is the act Chapter

structure, Three I a

contrasting introduced cognitive there is

approaches. act as an

a speech to

communicating this surface effectively action into system,

states)

the act,

hearer. which

still of the the

a locutionary speech act.

form

realisation becomes that the

The illocutionary states state that I with with is

speaker's the

cognitive cognitive

an associated to be transmitted that act the

translates appropriate states of

surface associated "use" the of

form.

suggest the speech act

remaining an by an in

cognitive explanation the hearer

represent

the

the

speech form.

and may be inferred is that

from of the

surface

My suggestion speech comprise


the speech

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

perlocutionary effect), governed response

preferred is carried

effect out in any

convention) not need to

hearer

does

be marked

The hearer epistemic, possibilities. into to two use

cognitive

state

that in

is

transmitted of

between

speaker P. describe broken I

and used the up

may be expressed modal On this distinct Searle's directives. an the S and

terms deontic

some proposition operators acts to

basis,

speech that

may be roughly belief a -

groups: taxonomy

those

express that class to

assertives of the

and those

express

want

speaker

The commissive communicates

may express the hearer a

intention. cognitive

Thus, state of bel whereas of the

assertive

form

... a directive form S ... possible intention P)) to between the

communicates

to

the

hearer

a cognitive

state

want It is

also

to in

think the

of form

commissive

speech

act

as

communicating will(do(S In addition

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

happened matter belief respect

practitioner. rise position


2. fact assertion The

The subject a of mutually authority


is

proposition speaker utterance.


of authority. for

can give is in a

to

held with

the his

hearer subtly

an undisputed alter a question: the

position speech

This an

can

act,

example

becomes

(70) are

(Client worth

to

stamp

dealer). more than

Four three

margin margins?

penny

blacks

substantially

3.

The position academic

of

authority

is

disputed.

For

example

in

an

argument. party is in a position social


of

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

noteworthy refined position and to adopt as in

authority

sometimes

certain authority know

circumstances (as less opposed the by

individual being

may be an authority In this to

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

terminology used where and the one

used term

(1982) of in

situation. the

She situation over another

position is

authority position speaker situation does of the have

to

speaker

a formal one second

primary

knower It formal change is

where the

is

authority described It the less might,

on a subject. above. for However, example (to It cognitive also

authority the level and a dramatic

politeness superior effect upon

subordinate polite).

more can

polite), have of

(perhaps speech

conveying

states

want.

Returning there belief category subdivided Questions where

to

the

cognitive types of

states speech a want. - the

themselves, act, those first

I stated communicating of all at

that a the be

two basic

and those that into

communicating communicate two broad the

Looking directives.

a want

These may and requests.

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

There speech example acts

have in

been terms Van have chosen

several of der

attempts a taxonomy Veken(1985), an

to of

describe speech Bach

the act

variety verbs.

of For and

Searle

and

an Harnish(1979) verb-based

Wierzbicka(1987) Because states such not I have

given to express I not way,

extensive speech refrain that acts

taxonomy. of cognitive another acts should

in from

terms

rather taxonomy. be described appear or

than That in to

verbs, is this

shall to say for

attempting speech

certain

example, How else

Austin's should

performatives actions such as

largely baptism

be

verb-based. be are

excommunication there as also der expressing be Veken taxonomy all, for

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

Perhaps, taxonomy. cit. ) have to

categorised (op.

verb-based

Wierzbicka(op. that do not

speech

verbs

appear

example:

One of any form of

the

problems is

with that

a verb-based the speech

taxonomy, act that is

indeed conveyed interpretation

with by

taxonomy

some utterance, of that utterance.

may be heavily For

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

some botched Perhaps, not hearer act is just in

up do-it-yourself therefore, terms of

be seem be also

boasting.

can only but

categorised in a how the speech

reacts. categorised in the the

Or putting according is boast

more generally, how the within

perhaps

propositional the act. can language Boasting only be

content community. is highly

expressed Taking

utterance of culture norms. thesis, relation

judged

problem upon cultural of this in

as a speech therefore

dependent in terms the of

and

described During studying

course act

I have been to discourse

concerned structure

with and

speech

theory

-181-

have

arrived states.

at

a theory There

based

on

the

notion to

of base

presupposed a taxonomy be very as

cognitive upon

might however, to think

be a temptation I suggest of that

cognitive It

states, is easy or only for


might

this

would

difficult. expressing wants, it poses but

declarative sentence acts acts.


speech and the

sentence types into two. as

types expressing

belief that

interrogative splits indirect


be to

up speech speech
categorise states (see

Furthermore,

problems
idea

Another the up is the set of

acts action

according that However,

to make that some be of n in there of

presupposed of because in given states, if he the the that only

cognitive the I act

description difficult

Chapter that

Three). there

believe of

ought i. e. it

to might

flexibility possible, cognitive some ought utterance to be act.

description description a speaker uses of n-1

an of

act, an still act

comprising that i. e. description a very act

can

express states. in the

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

be described makes the

terms

an acceptance,

undertaking

even

more

5.8

Summary and Formal

Model

of

Utterance

Generation

I set an explanation how speech

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

can be used to give forms of

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

some explanation from speech act

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

the the by that of of

These have to

schemas play by in a

connected pair just

together. acts, in

a common factor Two.

models analysis very

discourse has the pair

Chapter the

The conversational pair, in which Chapter matches Four.

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

firstly (insertion in two this this

the

two

component apart of be -

parts

are

required sequences acts). separate

sequences theory in parts to that part. the applied may this they In

insertion meta-speech

terms must

component applies is

produced The ordered;

by third i. e. state

theory. are the

characteristic they theory adjacency theory, different cognitive


It Four is

pairs

have

and a second true. This Finally, also parts

cognitive parts cognitive

this pair though first state

component to the

of

an

are

typed.

state to the

some parts. theory


that

second This is
the

appear

corresponding because detail.


in

may be partly in
or

explained

specified
notion with

much greater
introduced of the

appears not

pairing idea in

Chapter pairs. analysis

incompatible there example, is the called of three

the pairing and teaching of

adjacency discourse model

Furthermore, models, includes exchange essential: applies would ordinary (1981) model eliminated. response. discourse approach. It be to for a

a natural Sinclair the

Coulthard

(1975, The first

p. 26)

level

exchange. only feedback. feedback pedagogic) inappropriate, the Sinclair from the

teaching part is this teacher In Burton

consists initiation,

moves response

which and

However, the strategy. and and move

a classroom a sound

situation

where (and would to be

conversational feedback in order

conversation suggests to that

modify the

Coulthard should be and the

everyday This

conversation, leaves that approach us with there and

feedback of

a pairing is the common

initiation between

appears

ground

analysis

conversational

analysis

The may first build

basis

of in

the virtue

cognitive of

state

theory state the

is

that

speech by In order

acts the to

be paired part that

a cognitive or steers

presupposed part.

influences structure of of to this the

second acts, form

a discourse rules

based act

on speech pairs to

we need to larger that P. P units. and

build A the

combination simple hearer

speech is effect

example responds

when speaker that

asserts with

he agrees

The Formal

Model

Finally, surface form

the

time

has come to from

attempt

to

describe speech act

how

may be generated

a particular

schema,

-183-

however the the in next

incorporation chapter.

of I shall model

indirect need to slightly

forms modify in

will the order

have basic to

to

wait

until of use

presumptions them for

Bach and Harnish the Generation


Hearer is of act

adapt

Model.

The Linguistic
capable of

Presumption
determining in its

(LP) becomes:
the meaning form and from

The

presumed the

referents the speech

expression schema Si.

E generated

base

In

other

words

the

Linguistic share

Presumption set of

is

presumption acts and both that

that commonly accept it is

speaker perceive that

and hearer how they there in is the

a basic

speech

are such form

represented a thing of

linguistically, as an assertive sentence.


remains

e. g. and

generated
The modify Directness the I of good will speaker

a declarative

Communicative the Presumption (PD). speaking in I to do I

Presumption of

as before, into the a added to using that will

but Presumption complication

shall of of which

Literalness to avoid as chapter. the the assumption speaker from therefore: the

have

chosen

non-literally the next

opposed In

indirectly the unless directly, schema Si.

incorporate Directness, reason

Presumption there is i. e. The

am making otherwise, surface form is

speak act

generate Presumption

a direct of

speech

Directness

The so, Ste. In addition

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

(PP): Si that force act Si. of the the and

The speaker hearer effect In other

assumes

performing preconditions, context

some speech

understands on the words, of the

illocutionary of the speech

communicative there must act. for

be a shared

understanding of that believe the

mechanics of the

speech

An understanding the hearer fact to

preconditions making what not an he is

act

includes speaker but

example, the

when that that

assertion, saying will the certain This generation is believe speech

the true,

wants at the

same time

recognises force is

everyone what that a

him etc. act is

The illocutionary intended is to forms to being define from convey. conveyed the speech

effectively are

The effects to direct act the hearer. strategy schemas.

cognitive allows of

state us

for Here

the

surface

I shall

-184-

recognize performative declarative imperative intention, sentence The Direct

only speech sentential

three acts);

basic

speech acts

act which

forms typically which there by a

(excluding have form is either speaker a

assertive

construction, or questions. usually

directives Finally

sentences which type. Strategy: with respect

would

be expressed

declarative

Speaker to

recognizes

his P.

wants, Speaker

beliefs

and

intentions the authority

some proposition with the hearer act

recognizes to this P. he

relationship some basic sentential form: (modal)


form: authority Ui to reflect

with Si.

respect From

Speaker generates i)

recognizes a basic Assertive to add

speech form Ui.

form

Speaker operators,
Speaker

modifies if any.

declarative

form

(Ui)

ii)

Directive reflect

modifies with

surface respect and

form to P.

(Ui)

to

relationship his own

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

happens auxiliary is actually I am

human thought are added

processes, later, it

example, claiming it

because that in modal the part of in for

clauses what merely plays act in

I am not that

happens, claiming

may be that the part form.

occurs of

addition in

clauses speech

an important the final that surface

reflecting The last the

reflects change an

changes assertion of

may be made to into a about because forms. this critical P. these

utterance

assertion

an expression this their would is

regret

believe onto here of forms

justifiable

acts

do not avenue

map of to of

own sentential be to examine

An unexplored model direct (1990) in

relationship the structure

systemic (see for

grammar example

and how they Halliday

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

the the theory.

greatest problem In

difficulties of this how to section, Speech Acts which The idea speech may

facing incorporate I shall before to

speech indirect

act

theory speech

has acts

initially going be on to connected

examine examine with this of of in in

work of

on Indirect politeness, acts. indirect they develop structures

appears that acts arise of will

speech is that Firstly, I with the

be developed for of

in

come about because indirect in acts

a variety positions acts

shall the

my ideas

speech

developed of speech the acts"

previous developed of of

chapters, in what the

"use"

model the idea

Chapter Brown and driving speech by both

we accept call "face

that

avoidance is one of

threatening and hence

behind then

politeness

some types avoid acts. is

indirect of face

attempts

must'be certain is shall cognitive to carry giving etc. easy

made to speech to

a loss

when uttering An example that I

understand that there such request,

making are

a request.

In with the

this

section, certain is the able

argue

associated whether the

requests hearer involves the first

states, out the

as knowing or if

request object in

hearer place

something,

whether than

he has the making out if the there

Therefore act

rather

request is an the

directly, obstacle hearer have request.

the to the

indirect hearer

involves the the

finding request. request, not

servicing to service

For the want to

example, hearer

may not the object

be able being

may not the

requested

or even

service

We cannot as passing to lift because describe allow want to the

treat salt,

all

requests not

equally, reasonably On the know too service for keep

for

some requests the hearer

such not a

we would such

expect other well

service

a request.

hand might

requesting be difficult

home from they why a way for

someone we don't not want to

might certain both

our

request. are

I intend used

to which

strategies parties to

requesting face.

-186-

Other of additional

indirect

acts

may come about states we the associated may plead hearer is

because with with perfectly form.

of

the

existence act. to of do For P

knowledge when pleading, however assert making it.


is

a speech the hearer aware After plea all, itself

example, because we could important reason for


The request) concern how the

of

Q. If,

P, then what as is the

simply in

Q as an indirect a plea is not

so much the

making
contention has what

that with it

each a set or

speech of

act cognitive with P,

type

(such states,

as which to

associated the speaker came to

knows the

believes that

reference what the the hearer speaker P).

P,

speaker the on or act is the

conclusion about P (i. e.

speaker is on an P

perceives authority matters, a speech speaker expects associated speech there everyone) with the act are

hearer P

knows

whether over the

matters what has the

or

an authority hearer believes with to or of of do the in it

simply type attempting hearer with (the a that

about

Additionally of what the

associated to convey

a description hearer response hearer act and to may pair). be act This what P.

the It

speaker is to also the

to

believe

a description second set are set of half

how the speech (that the

respond

the

Furthermore, the in I same for

strategies to perform

may not speech

used of

accordance have called

a cultural speech act

politeness or plan.

requirements.

schema

Furthermore, be which cognitive speaker (bel(S related acts via

in

Chapter

Four, to for

I examined form

how speech of

acts

may acts

cognitive

states block to that doesn't the (in form

a pairing

speech

as a building states

discourse for that that

structure. example he believes P (-bel(H but

Certain where that P)). the P This are a

may lead

conflict, indicates believe of

makes an utterance P)) to and the conflict hearer in

may lead socially strategy

an argument; there

as these exist

undesirable for avoiding if the

most form

cultures), of conflict. the

may well

this the hearer what

Even worse, requested do P then this Rather speech is more acts that

speaker

wants

hearer hearer will

to

do P (i. e. not want

has to

does P) and the Leech (1983) calls

does

we have is

incompatibility.

Again

undesirable than think of think

and should of the of the reason

be avoided. for of making face of most indirect acts, for avoiding it

in

terms to

avoidance it in terms

threatening

logical

a strategy

-187-

undesirable request Brown be the hearer examine state

pairings which is

of turned model

cognitive down, (Brown face, if

states. who loses

After face?

all,

when making to appears it I is

According it

the to the shall

and Levinson speaker who

and Levinson but in

1987),

who loses loses of this face

many societies, the request. with the

he cannot in

grant

notions model in

politeness chapter.

conjunction

cognitive

6.2

Searle's

Theory

of

Indirect

Speech Acts

Searle acts, According (1) and mean to it a work to

(1969) that

first

proposed

the

notion revised the

of in

indirect Searle

speech (1979).

he substantially a speaker the salt?

Searle,

may utter

sentence:

Can You pass

not the 1979,


that

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

information, together and inference

Searle Furthermore, speech


a

op.

cit.

p. 32). that the means of understanding an indirect

he states include:
of

act

theory

speech and

acts, mutually speaker of the

principles shared and hearer, to

of factual

co-operative background with an

conversation information ability (Searle of on the op. cit.

the part

together make

hearer

inferences.

p. 32).

The ideas this In

presented except

in

this that

chapter

will

not detail

disagree will these to study

greatly be filled ideas his

with in. being example

approach order to

much missing how Searle

understand it

visualised

brought (Searle

together, op. cit. cited Let's I have

would

be illuminating

pp. 33-35). the utterance the pair: tonight.

Searle (2) (3) X: Y:

go to to

movies for

study

an exam.

-188-

The

question

that

arises

is: of his of

how does

X know that Searle

Y's

utterance the and then the op.

constitutes rejection the puts of

a rejection the of proposal fact

suggestion? X the primary

describes act He at

illocutionary act. have arrived

statement together

the

secondary of is

illocutionary

a reconstruction that his proposal

how X might being turned

conclusion cit. p. 34).

down.

(Searle

Step

1:

I have to

made a proposal the effect that

to

Y, and in study

response for an

he has made a exam (facts

statement about the

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

rejection, Speech Acts).

counterproposal,

discussion,

This the

is

the

first is

step of a

that

needs

clarification. type, Searle his not a tacit of the

By assuming is theory affected

that

response the that

particular speech stand Yet act

implicitly as it by is their of two

accepting rules

notion acts

of

pairing, and are we have

speech

alone here

immediate either (or state explains proposal the more)

predecessors. notion speech of acts

acceptance ordering of

an adjacency within also of the

pair,

or

a discourse allow the us to cognitive that

structure. carry out step

The cognitive 3, but by it the

theory it which

would in

terms

state

expressed

limits

response

can be made.

Step not

4:

But

his

literal response

utterance (inference

was not from

one of

these,

and so was

a relevant

steps

1 and 3).

This in great

important detail principles, that it. in

step this

outlines chapter,

something namely

that the

will of

be discussed conflicting Relevance utterance Uj

idea

pragmatic specifies following

namely utterance

relevance

and sequencing. to

Ui must

be relevant that

The sequencing

maxim states

when the

primary

-189-

speech important), type, response relevance the

act

is then

a proposal the to be but maxim, the this

(the

exact

name given act must

to

it

is a

not certain

so

secondary a mis-match relevant the actual because second if

speech of the

be of

giving should maxim,

rise

pragmatic second

principles. speaker obeys to of

The the obey it A to a

response, a direct is

doesn't

appear

sequencing that of

interpretation making a

indicates statement proposal. which is

speaker not must an

statement. response

sort there

is

appropriate indirect proposal.

Therefore, appropriate

be an to the

interpretation

as a response

To summarise:

i) ii)

Utterance Utterance sequencing a proposal.

1 is

a proposal be relevant. it must

(say). Secondly, according to the to

2 must maxim,

be an appropriate

response

iii)

Its not

direct relevant it

interpretation or is that not it an

indicates violates appropriate the

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.

Step that differ

5: his

Therefore, remark from his is

he probably relevant, one his

means primary

more

than

he

says.

Assuming point must

illocutionary from steps 2 and

literal

(inference

4).

This between

inference the

can pragmatic speech

be made because principles, act but

of this

the is

apparent not the only

conflict reason

why an indirect

can be interpreted

as such.

Step amount to the

6: of

I know that time relative normally (factual of is to

studying to takes

for

an exam normally evening, amount information). information in the is

takes

large going to a

a single a large

and I know that of time relative

movies evening

single

background

The notion here, there

factual

background far

rather

vague that that compare

something the

more precise conclusion, of

utterance the is fact

can be used in it the with (4) (5)

form the

correct

namely necessity

utterance the

modal

auxiliary

used,

responses: to study for an exam. for an exam.

I want 1 will

be studying

-190-

Both the

of

the

above

utterances

seem noticeably because the

less

friendly that

than can

one given is

by Searle, that Y has to do anything

probably

inference thus

be drawn that

do something else.

by necessity,

implying

he cannot

Step study

7: for

Therefore an exam in

he probably one evening

cannot

both

go to from

the Step

movies 6).

and

(inference

Step or

8: on

A preparatory any other in

condition is

on the the

acceptance to

of

proposal, the (theory act of

commissive, the propositional

ability

perform

predicated speech acts).

content

condition

Step

9:

Therefore, that (inference

I know that he probably steps

he has said cannot 1,7

something

that

has the the

consequence proposal

consistently

accept

from

and 8).

Step reject

10:

Therefore, proposal

his

primary

illocutionary from steps

point 5 and 9).

is

probably

to

the

(inference

In

this

example, in the

the

indirect act the

speech pair. primary see in acts are

act

occurs the

in

the case

secondary that the

position indirect no longer reasons

speech was in

Were it position, this used. that

speech apply.

act

then

step

3 would are many

As we shall speech on to

chapter,

there

why indirect goes the

Searle used certain i) in

examine of

sentences

are

conventionally He identifies

performance of

indirect directives: H's

directives.

categories Sentences you pass ii) Sentences e. g. iii)

indirect

concerning the salt?

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

Sentences get off

concerning my foot? concerning you mind concerning

doing

A.

e. g.

Would you kindly

iv)

Sentences e. g. Would

H's not

desire making

or willingness so much noise. for doing A.

to

do

A.

v)

Sentences should leave

reasons

e. g.

You

inanediately.

-191-

vi)

Sentences another.

embedding e. g. Might

one

of

these take

elements off your hat?

inside

I ask you to

Searle types

then (Searle

states op.

that cit.

certain p. 39).

facts

pertain

to

these

sentence

1.

The sentences of their

in

question

do not

have

an imperative

force

as part Searle provides

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

do this that do it.

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

be particularly an imperative take off

feeble force: your

as it

could

just

as

be linked (7) Might just Take off

e. g. hat?

I ask you to as easily your


is

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

as between force. not types types

an

imperative The question a case of of saying

illocutionary ambiguity that all

and a non-imperative one and it indirect indirect argue speech speech are is act act

a difficult these

simply are such non-

of

inherently as: Might

non-ambiguous, I ask you to but to give indirect the

certain ... forms

one could such

inherently

ambiguous, ambiguous

as hints

may be

deliberately

hearer

"a way out".

3. used Searle type of

Notwithstanding to issue that

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

and directive between

systematic for with

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

The sentences are not also

in

question

have requests.

literal

utterances

in

which

indirect

7. they

In

cases still

where

these

sentences

are

uttered and are

as

requests, with

have that

their literal

literal

meaning meaning.

uttered

and as having

8.

When

one

of

these of

sentences a directive, the literal

is

uttered the literal

with

the

primary

illocutionary point of

point a directive,

illocutionary act is also

illocutionary

performed.

Searle been

suggests categorised cases I to hope the way, acts arise

that and are to be

the the

difference refusal to In show have same

between go the to the

the

cases is

that that I

have the shall

movies

categorised develop, to go

systematic. able do at the not to

explanation cases treated such in

that as the an that

that to be

refusal entirely indirect

movies but for

separate speech

time of

recognising

a variety

reasons.

Searle felicity certain 1. either

then

attempts

to

furnish

an explanation conditions, which

in give

terms rise

of to

conditions generalisations: S

and preparatory

can make an indirect asking H's whether ability or to

request stating that

(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

S can make an indirect stating S can that the

propositional

condition stating

make an indirect condition obtains,

sincerity obtains.
4. S can

by asking

make there

an

indirect are good

directive or overriding that

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.

Although that these

these are what

may be valid generalisations constraints are the

observations and not there are

(Searle rules) on that these result being there

himself is

states of

no way

explaining For that indirect which the is my with extends set of the example, the

generalisations. in a statement as ways an in then there In

what

circumstances content

propositional speech statement act? of is

obtains

treated to the

Without

giving

some thought becomes

some proposition almost meaningless. mechanisms acts, are

a directive,

generalisation no explanation analysis why his of

More importantly, for indirection also be Finally, exist.

why these indirect

speech acts include

I shall performed.

concerned Searle a

indirect analysis

speech to

indirect to the ones

commissives for the

producing

generalisations

similar

directives.

6.3

A New Theory

of

Indirect

Speech Acts

6.3.1

Introduction

It why work have

should

be noted speech will acts be to

first are

of

all

that

there

are

many

reasons of this maxims

indirect however to play

performed. the role

The main that and the arise

thrust

examine surface

pragmatic theory mostly that

in is

determining that indirect between that attempt as forms to be are

form acts

will of

be developed potential cognitive Additionally, speech acts

speech either socially will of (at

because

conflicts states an are

pragmatic deemed

maxims to explain be

or presupposed undesirable. why indirect

be made to politeness. least) four

used

There indirect i) ii)

appear speech Indirect Indirect between acts:

potential

types

of

speech speech pragmatic Speech

acts acts

that that

arise arise

because because

of

authority. of conflicts

maxims. acts that arise because of politeness

iii)

Indirect

considerations. iv) Indirect missing Speech cognitive acts that arise because of additional act. or

states

presupposed

by a speech

-194-

The authority (8) The

first uses

category toned

includes

cases e. g.

where

speaker

in

down orders, you look at

I suggest

Sacerdoti's in

work

on planning. overlap, to take

second

and third

categories

many ways

Searle's (9)

example: A: Shall I have demands but is set the up. proposal


speech

we go to to that direct study

the for

movies

tonight?

(10)B: Sequencing response, conflict reason


An additional is no longer with That

an exam. such "no" is as the one made requires and hence hints at a a

a proposal response

seems impolite that

The way out is being


that

indirection down.
because occurs example to

the

why the
indirect

turned
arises state for them

act cognitive

of

a the

missing direct

or form

presupposed appropriate. someone, reason there direct

when

Consider we plead might might form only with be

pleading;

when of

we

plead reason. of

do P because to their the moral

some sense is

an appeal reason lead of

duty, In

but its

a good this

which to

hearer form:

unaware.

could

a surface

Please However, unaware then then below if of what

do X because the the does hearer

of

Y. we want wants them to the do X to but do is X,

knows that speaker If

reason the of

why the

hearer the

speaker the

say?

he repeats

above

formula

a violation illustrates

"pie informative" usually happens in

maxim occurs. such

The example

what

circumstances:

Taken Saigon pulling of for the the

from at out country hearers

(Maltby the

and Boublil the Vietnam of is

1989) war.

which

depicts

the

fall

of are out

end of

The American want the to

troops

and thousands (hence to do): it

Vietnamese what

be airlifted are

obvious

speakers

pleading

(11) (12) (13) (14)

One Vietnamese: Another: Another: Another: I have I helped I have

Take me with a letter the CIA. in look!

you!

(The direct

form)

an aunt

New York.

(15) (16)

Another: Another:

I have They'll

gold kill

I can pay. all they find here.

-195-

In they

this

case have acts

it

is

self

evident reasons, that state

that

everyone happens

wants is

to that

leave,

but

different are used

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

indirect when the

speech speaker In Four), for this type

act asserts that and type of

that that situation indeed of yes-no that it

has

already the

been hearer

P when it there

a position

of (see

authority. Chapter.: form

was described seems to be a

a question

special question identical by a final

linguistic is in an form

act.

The question is

declarative which distinguished is

exceptional to

a statement

except

rising

intonation:

(17) Quirk in et

You've al.

seen the state

headmaster? that a declarative forms to to


apply but

(1973) because You've

question are

is

assertive e. g.

character (18a)

non-assertive

inadmissible,

had something had anything


seem to

eat? eat?
not when so much the They but they when is the hearer is

(18b)*You've
Declarative an authority

questions over the

speaker, primary tag

hearer are are as

an authority related because

on P matters to they certain are

(Berry's types of

knower).

possibly indirect

questions, form and yet

assertive

in

function

questions.

It at all

is

quite

possible differ from

that direct

certain

speakers in

may not only

use

them way.

and they a question P true?

questions

a subtle

Whereas Is a

functions Yes or No, question

thus:

declarative

appears at al. "yes" state or

to

function (op. cit.

as

request

for

confirmation, that the

as Quirk speaker takes

p. 195). foregone

They suggest conclusion.

"no" to

as a mean:

Hence a declarative I believe This at all explanation fit in well that

question P is true, fact the

appears but that cognitive

can you confirm? such a form of question exists

and the with

state

theory.

-196-

6.3.3.

Pragmatic

Maxims,

Politeness

and Indirect

Speech Acts

In maxims decide conflict Grice maxims, The

order result just with

to in what each

determine indirect pragmatic other. first

just speech

how the acts, there

application we first are and of

of all how

pragmatic need they to may

maxims

(1975) given

postulated heading is

the of

idea

of

a set

of

pragmatic Principle'.

the

broad

'The

Cooperative into four

Cooperative

Principle

subdivided

categories

of

maxims: i) Quantity. Give the your right amount of information: as i. e. as

1. Make required. 2. Do than


ii) Quality: i. e. Try

contribution

informative

not is
to

make your required.


make your

contribution

more

informative

contribution

one

that

is

true:

1. Do not 2. Do not

say what say that

you believe for which

to

be false. lack adequate

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

following Sequencing. exchange stage of

maxims: The speaker's contribution type appropriate to to the that

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)

Politeness. that is, is

The not

speaker offensive,

speaking, abusive,

iv)

Morality. that reveal, does hearer is,

The does does not does

speaker not not reveal ask the wish

in

speaking information information to do

behaves that

ethically, he ought not that not or the

for hearer

he ought something

direct not

done etc.

-197-

If assumption gone indirect before. certain Sequencing Chapter answer follows

we consider that It what is

relevance follows also to

first bears used to bear other must pairing occupies is natural

of

all.

This

is

used to

as

an has is gone a

some relationship determine that to us to has acts

what

before. when it

something what decide gone has that before.

appears

no relationship hand allows follow of the what speech primary to attempt

Sequencing set of results If

on the speech from acts the

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

convention type sincere. where rather half which even

politeness in obvious making

demands that type is

example that thank be

the

response of given.

"How well

demands "Really that some bad can

an answer you" as that is

There

house

used

a compromise: the standard

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

sometimes Allen plan

been

asked in

attempted where of the

computationally identified supplied This of to the

the

a potential information maxim is probably acts.

obstacle that of helps less Quality

hearer this point likewise acts. its that in

hearer

overcome from the

importance and in

indirect be of only

speech minor has

truthfulness speech However could argue outlined means is adding

importance often correct been as

indirect

maxim

that

criticised. one

almost justification Using manner difficulty

certainly for speech an

the

direct acts where

assumption, possible act

Chapter the

direct whereas

obeying

maxim layer

indirect to be

speech overcome.

an extra

that

has

6.4

Politeness

and

Face

Several (1990) for

attempts example

have been made to four

explain

politeness. views of

Fraser

describes

alternative

politeness.

-198-

The each more states view the Lakoff

first

of

these has

is

the

social set that of the of

norm of

view social

(Kasher norms

1986)

in

which of

society or of is basis less

a particular rules a way calls set

consisting behaviour, The view was of applied

explicit or

prescribe in

certain a context. maxim This maxims:

affairs Fraser Grice's

thinking

second which by

what is (1973)

conversational maxims. extra

pragmatic following

who derived

the

i) ii) With the


a) b)

Be clear Be polite sub-rules:


Don't Give Impose options

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

distinguished social goals. but individual scales: to

illocutionary described the are maxim in of

goals greater politeness on scale, five

below, six of

measured

cost-benefit the authority how

optionality and the social

indirectness scale. The

distance are made is

exactly

measurements

however

somewhat

A Levinson person rational self-image, territory, suggest face; order

further (1987). (MP), agent.

approach Brown

is

the

face-saving (op. cit.

view p. 59)

of

Brown

and

and Levinson face is

define

a model a

who has positive Positive face

and negative seen as the is

face positive basic

and who is consistent claim

whereas personal that it will

negative preserves be in are

face

seen as to

to They

and rights an MPs mutual intrinsically of such

non-distraction. interest to

maintain and in acts, enable

however to

some acts the to

face-threatening face threatening that best

minimize resort to

effects

individuals both parties Fraser contract (Fraser

using face. ) also

certain

strategies

maintain cit.

(op. view

puts

forward with

the

conversational linguistic form

which 1981).

associates

deference

& Nolan

Kasper

(1990)

points

out

that

there

is

no

satisfactory

-199-

definition two a things: society.

of

politeness. regard aspect

I to of with

suggest certain politeness regard culture

that

it

is

a combination norms imposed known These example noise favourably (1984) we would is

of by as

firstly This particularly

behavioural is to to rude it is eating another, to looked make

sometimes habits. for a

etiquette, may be British drinking Japan guide etiquette. to for

norms in when in a

contradictory society soup. loudly Chinese He has the it On the

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

liquids hot, to at sip is

for

whatever

reason, vulgar in

usually the west,...,

because it suck

are safer air

considered tea to or

one's same time

one's

soup and not down.


to has do with more to

to

the

cool

either
anything

norms

don't The of

necessarily pragmatic polite with express

have maxim

linguistic do a with an

behaviour. explanation definition use of

approach and this

language linguistic one's to is the that

leads

onto politeness desires

second is the in a

concerned language that is to

politeness: beliefs, addressee. the has maxims postulated wants,

etc. with to

manner pragmatic for all

acceptable approach Gu

One problem do not four seem

the hold for

maxim cultures.

(1990)

maxims

Chinese:

i)

The self the other.

denigration

maxim - denigrate

oneself,

elevate

ii)

The Address form of


Tact

maxim - it

is

important

to

use

the

correct

address.
maxim

iii)

The

iv) iii) and

The Generosity iv) are The a for culture society example

maxim less maxim which the is same according to Leech's in Family than in are

more or address in are

definitions. Chinese, members British addressed to into their the

particularly is in very

important important. way

naming

identified For from

a much finer uncles

and language. members

example, generation are uncles of

and aunts

by family position family. to seniority:

the

below, family aunts or are sar

according married numbered - third, as

and whether In Hokkien, tua

they

the

and jee are

according see

first, Then they

- second, identified

fourth, -

goh - fifth.

either

-200-

family in-law, male) Similarly, see-teow.

members chim is

or

in-laws:

the

- uncle, example, his

koh - aunt, third

teow

- uncle(the third

- aunt-in-law. as sar-che, would

For

uncle be

known fourth

spouse

would

sar-chim. would be

aunt

be see-koh

and her

husband

The on the

approach notion but of it

of face is

Brown and far

and they from

Levinson have clear that less

is

based this is

almost as so. there a Ide

entirely language (1986) a much As 1987,

described that in of this

universal, cast greater I her pointed data doubt level

on this of out indicates this on to

idea, discernment her at

claiming and the of is IPRA

Japanese a volitional

is

element. in

Pragamatics for about acts, of face be is of it all that it

conference Chinese linguistic is worth also.

a form work indirect

discernment primarily speech

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

politeness noting inadequate as a that to

Brown all

Levinson and

definition cannot society, aspects

seems viewed

cultures In There Levinson

therefore face

language and quite the

Chinese are

important don't fit

however, model.

into

Chinese Chinese),

society face two

(primarily, appears

Malaysian to or be groups a dinner, daughter of

Hakka concerned in the which (or the son)

and with presence is

Hokkien the of fairly some living senior of the If rude not to of No a

between For a

individuals donsider with aunt one and for eating eat

example: family an be

and

(perhaps, would her

uncle the the rice

daughter to This "call" consists

customary before

daughter meal. ... in

family eat rice,

"Father must

mother family this, would daughter be

" a ritual, order be of

where seniority.

address fails to

each do

member then lose it

daughter her), brought she face but

would face for

considered seen

her up

parents their

being In the of

correctly. for her

absence manners.

would is

merely involved.

castigated

lack

In a male is the not

another friend giving in

example, the

a male of

discusses his

a former

girlfriend In this lose his way, face.

with he In

presence

girlfriend. she is he seen to

his of or not

girlfriend his is friend, a matter

face,

absence

whether for

discusses girlfriend,

former loss of

girlfriends

him and his

-201-

face

does

not

come into society, Failure

it. it to is customary to see departing guests or be

In Malaysian to taken party


A then arrival his his home definition only Clearly, It individuals as and would that of an at involves there is not of the habits friends before is

the

gate.

do so would not to

be seen as impolite the the


his his

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

man arranged and was went

forgot

with

furious

he had pub. face,

already

knowing front he of got

sought would doing face

To castigate so by yet in she waited

him

lose Such

until and

so.

an act, and in the with as

Brown Chinese of a

Levinson's society, it party. of face. two such

threatening, of face

a loss is

presence their this

third

something quite same as

wrong simple in

definition however: knit

consider

rank

a loosely

environment, something privately, society,

academic a later be B is said not

environment. date, that giving B asks B has not

A upbraids a favour given face. is of often of

B for A. In

Chinese

it

himself This the party, is case

face. almost that it is

A would a reflexive face not gain

realise form or loss so.

himself it

face.

So although, place in front

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

the were party.

Brown and only face A face as the Chinese that, are

examples of

acts act off

when performed (by the her in Brown

front

another definition) threatening

and Levinson is of only a third by face

such in all Levinson

husband front

used

party. Brown speech indirect

Despite and acts. speech acts

strategies reference to the

described to indirect of face uttered these

interesting Returning politeness, Brown however, of is culture. to ask and it

with

problem the

acts described

and by acts,

clearly Levinson

some of are

threatening as acts indirect are

often that is

speech

seems unlikely An act which

totally in

independent society say an then same

face

threatening their that is

Japanese in failed,

someone a question If face, they have to

about answer a question

performance they never have

examination. they lose

hence

such

asked.

The

-202-

does be

not

apply

in is

British that the

society. indirectness more important

The general is used reasons conflicting for

thesis a are:

that variety conflict

will of of

presented but

reasons, maxims, cognitive

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

consider (op. cit.

some very p. 112)

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)

A tells A forbids Flouting.

B to

do A, but doing

B does not A, but

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

(Weakest). to A that to B that B does B that A wants not B to to do A, but B

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

Clearly, politeness this. He polite Principle. i)

conflict maxims

is are

to

be

avoided of

where strategies

possible. to

Leech's just

an explanation

achieve

postulated behaviour His The six Tact

six

maxims

of

politeness to are: the

that form

he says the

explain

and these maxims Maxim, the cost of

go together politeness in to which another

Politeness

speaker

attempts the benefit

to to

minimize another. ii)

and maximize

The Generosity benefit to

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)

The Modesty praise of

Maxim, himself

in

which

the

speaker dispraise the

minimizes of himself.

the

and maximizes in which

v)

The

Agreement

Maxim, between

speaker and

minimizes maximises

disagreement agreement vi) The

himself

and another

between

himself in himself himself

and another. which and the speaker and (Leech minimizes maximizes op. cit.

Sympathy

Maxim,

antipathy sympathy p. 132) Leech Principle to form then suggests the

between between

another

and another.

that maxims the

the of

maxims the

that

comprise principle

the

Politeness go together op. cit. what

plus what

Cooperative

he calls

Interpersonal how this of

Rhetoric may be applied

(Leech to

p. 149). he calls One lack a of set

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

Leech's Gu for maxims

example for

postulated from those and as in

politeness

Chinese ideas provide speech

differ

given

by Leech. (op. act

However, cit.

Leech's they of

interesting an alternative (for conditions

he states speech Searle's sincerity If to

p. 171), to sets

us with act rules

theory essential

example, and

conditions, of illocutions). these

preparatory

conditions

we now consider such

politeness find would

principles opening start of a

when

applied

assertives, strangers, statement Nice Its

as one might most as: we're here isn't in having it? turn: opening people

conversation with a fairly

between innocuous

then such

(19a) (19b) Considering maxim maxim, suspicion relative is being The assertives,

weather lovely

aren't

we?

Leech's

maxims for

the line applied,

tact

maxim and generosity The treated that his third with when action a

aren't the in

applicable approbation most

assertives. may be often think them,

maxim if

circumstances comes up to

as people

stranger driven fourth but

them and flatters motive. modesty strange maxim to

by some ulterior maxim it the

can launch

be into

used a

with tirade

seems rather

-204-

against sympathy sympathy is the

oneself maxim is safest, not

to is always

a perfect only

stranger. in

The sixth certain maxim, avoid that

maxim

the

applicable The fifth way to

circumstances, of is agreement to reach

welcome. the best

because

conflict

agreement

on something. the P is speech not is act: Assert(P). This is perfectly making e. g. sure safe that

Consider assuming this about facilitates Quirk et. (20)


actually the which safest no one

that

controversial. of the

One way of obvious, to

will the

be so, weather.

a statement There even

statements form Five that and

appears

be a surface 1 (see Chapter

agreement, al. Its


seems

i. e.

Tag Question such it?


This it with. is

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

In question state: agrees. appears state but


Let's the Without the

a is bel(S

sense that

what the

is

happening, is not only

particularly conveying response

with the that

tag

speaker is also

cognitive the hearer

P) but

inviting in

the this to

The speech to also make it the

act

expressed not

way (as a tag convey the

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

now consider believes

hearer

poss(P) of

violating maxim

maxim

agreement

a response

(21) On then the

Perhaps, hand

Yes. if

(Rising the hearer

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

(23) (24) A response does not

A: We've B: Actually, that want to

been

awful. cannot accept as: P, and yet

indicates appear I'm

rude

might

be one such

(25a)
or

B: Oh,

so sure.

(25b)

B: Do you

really

think

so?

-205-

Asserting agreement positively avoided. Another it is unlikely to

that to

P,

particularly safest thus form

where of

one

is as

inviting it will is be

appears inviting

be the

utterance that conflict

agreement,

ensuring

form to

of

speech to

act conflict topic

that

seems relatively is a suggestion the examples

safe (of given we

in

that

lead

something above). believe more (they

pertaining When that neutral leave don't above, doubts making P

some neutral a suggestion

as in stating

we are we are because disagree use of tone not

that

although Suggestions

may be true, than assertions

certain. don't

are

they

invite conflict). in

agreement

the

hearer

open to the falling

without tag tag

Suggestions the same way to indicate as

seem to however about (26)

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

He likes tone except He might to agree

But

rising

suggestions, (27) It not for is easy

clumsy mightn't

tomorrow,

a suggestion, commitment. agreeing oneself category

because However,

making

an absolute by either proclaiming major for

pitfalls, gives the

example, of next acts,

or disagreeing, as an authority of speech act

impression The commissive is obligating

on P matters. is the set of one that except that he

example and not acts are

promise.

When making hence,

a promise, I suggest

oneself, speech

someone else, often to this used do is

commissive perhaps shouldn't

not

indirectly, something guided

where really

the

speaker

promises again,

do and once maxim.


a higher hence It without is

by a pragmatic

maxim - the
Questions simple part that of is

morality
involve

degree impose

of

work

by

the

hearer on

than the

assertions the hearer.

and

a greater to agree much some a greater

"obligation" with about work, focus place an

very saying

easy very doing Hence

assertion but at obligation on the a

obvious a answer upon of

oneself, arriving or

answering truthful is placed

question for the

involves something. hearer.

Some societies questions negatively

emphasis (e. g.

avoidance

answering

Japanese),

-206-

hence assertion. If

a question

appears

to

be more

"emotionally

loaded"

than

an

responding from the

to

questions than

involves does

higher to of

degree assertives,

of

commitment then than requests questions.

hearer

responding degree

certainly This gives

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

on a downwards question carry

asking refusing at best is not not safest

should involves worst

a request face. The

potential can happen can If be an be an

a loss it as

that

a question but is the a hint:

that

answered to then linguistic

negatively, carry agreement interaction. out

which a request. can

as bad

refusing

controversial form of

readily Consider

(28) meeting tonight

(Standing an isn't

outside

in

the

rain

waiting Its

for raining

bus, hard

acquaintance it?

who has a car):

A is use either one

hinting a direct be of two

that

he

would Lets

like

a ride

home the

in

the

car, request, then

but it it

cannot can for

request. or

consider If it

direct refused,

accepted reasons:

refused.

is

is

cannot

give direction to visit want

Aa

lift

home (because stop off

he to

is

going

in

a or

different is going

or has to his to give mistress, Aa lift

do some shopping

there

can be many reasons). for example

B does B finds reasons). Clearly,

not

home (because, again there

A boring,

or A has halitosis,

can be many

can't an

is

a better individual have to

reason does admit that

than not

won't want to

and be

under put

normal into a in

circumstances position response


The want that. annoyed want to to B

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

assertion feeling whether insensitive.

drives with give B. Aa

A is not

perhaps certain

somewhat B did not

absolutely

whether

B was merely

-207-

On the desirable: (29) or

other

hand turning

the

request

into

a question

is

less

A: Are still:

you going

home via

Stotfold?

worse A:

(30) The reveals can resort give to (31)

Can you possibly of using

give

me a lift is worse

home? because with to, the it potentially If has B to

strategy the Aa

a question not

reason lift two

why B does home, but

comply not

request. then he

does

want

one of B: I'm

responses: I can't, maxim,


but forced doing, in in 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

something second between case, A and

uncomfortable to

a deterioration comply B feels is of the "put

relations order upon". strategy, the I will request call to

B might but in

unwillingly any case a hint

avoid

worsening

relations,

Using parties achieved

safest

because altogether. request

it

allows This

both can be

a means by

by-passing that

a mechanism

cancellation:

(33) (34) pick (35) lift.

A: B:

Its I'm

raining sorry

heavily I can't

tonight give

isn't

it? I have to go to

you a lift,

up my son. A: Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to imply I was asking for a

(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

situations. salt? used this not

case is

: Can you to you. this: is

Why would instead. is to a case comply

such

as:

There where with

perhaps speaker request.

reasons

knows that Perhaps

hearer explains

Can you pass

the

salt?

seems OK, whereas (38) Will you pass rude. suggest that in a situation where the speaker the salt?

seems rather This appears to

-208-

knows request" worst X". to as:

that

the then

hearer it is

is

unlikely

to to

say ask a

"No,

I won't

service because

your the do "no" such

acceptable is that the

question, will say than to "No,

that

can happen "no" So, to

hearer is far

I can't

Answering a request.

a question does it

better

answering use a hint

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

request? Can You to as

An obvious X? is

because then use: assumes the favour, allows the used implies carry hearer hearer i. e. form

a standardized the cases hinting. likely to but is where I

we still Can you

need X? the

delimit opposed is is not

acceptable that where

to

suggest the the

that

hearer X?

refuse where

request, request because of

Can you then the

acceptable, strategy the

hinting that H (do passing

more to

acceptable get out

a strategy state: in the a out is -want salt possible a simple anti-social (hints teacher

enables (H, P)). request

hearer Perhaps seems on the

revealing why a hint it to the the

also, rude part turn

a reason might of would as be the imply offensive in

because hearer that by classrooms,

unwillingness social which in this act. would way This

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:

Can you P? act formed as a

it finely it

is

not tuned

so

much form

a of

conventionalised/standardized politeness imposing implying or that is correctly (as a

so that

avoids It part of also

appearing avoids hearer.

intrusive anti-social

request behaviour

might). on the

possible

the

We can now summarise

this

strategy

as follows:

1. is

Speaker

states

that

some

state

of

affairs

P obtains

that

a) known to b) for c) easily the a

the

hearer, as a state of affairs that is bad

recognisable speaker, state of and affairs

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

and offer of state

alleviates speaker. c) d) 2a. 2b recognise recognise agrees offers there may: apologise which

affairs

it it with to

as a hint, as a hint, speaker, do Q.

but but

be unable not want

to to

do Q. do Q. sequence. accepts,

Hearer Hearer unless

end of Speaker

exchange

(presumably)

has been

a misunderstanding.

2c.

Hearer i) After request imply ii)

for

not

being

able

to option of

Q and to "I

give "cancel"

reason. the to

speaker the

has the equivalent

by saying that I wanted to either the at

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

Alternatively implies to do P, that but

hearer

may resort time e. g. time

some other today.

he might "I'm

not

sorry,

you a lift 2d. Hearer to will

today, either 2a.

some other lie The

perhaps. strategy response

and adopt direct

strategy

unacceptable. happen (2a) is and

In that a lie

accordance the in
I

with

this

schema, choose the

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

therefore, having which to rise

that to

hints Leech

are called had the round to

used will reveal

is

that

it

incompatibility, that he did not 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,

Confirmation. I believe that P,

(To a person

is who )

an

authority

can you confirm?

-210-

ii)

Request He is

Information. asking the hearer The

Here the to tell

speaker

wants P. the

to

know

P.

him about wants

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

Case 1 was described wants be true uses confirmation and knows

true.

The speaker is an authority or


wants the

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

the further tell acts

important

question

hearer the

possibility the such speaker as: P). Can once speaker P). 3 is the

regarding This you case tell as to an

whether typically me P?

hearer involves

indirect the

Addressing speech hearer is act(it

necessary also to works tell

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

"normal" the hearer

request, can The it

here

there that I the the

are

two

important wants forward would to is not to the a to then

that to

do P and

hearer put

) do P. which service, If want of

argument is assumed

that

have

request to

hearer regarding something to give the

then it then

a question is a favour, in fact will of order that

ability that hearer want

asked. not

however to do,

a means request used. in

disguising (what hint Leech has the

the calls

he does

not

service a hint a way

incompatibility), also giving him above). to the

The that making

virtue that the

speaker that

he

has

a pathway (see

enables schema

claim

he was merely

a comment

With likelihood however For it: On this

increased of is using

familiarity questions

between or even

speaker direct the

and forms theory

hearer,

the

increases, presented.

perfectly give

acceptable my friend for give

within a lift

example, in the this other

I always case it

home when he requests use the a in lift this if direct home, case this it form. but is same

seems natural I usually due to other

him to

hand,

my friend

sometimes more likely

I can't that

commitments, be used.

a question

would

However

-211-

friend onto reason lend strains

wanted

to

borrow

money,

then

this to

would

take

our for

friendship the simple to it

new ground: that him the

he would not

be likely

use a hint react lend may put a hint. to

he would money,

know how I would I say that even if I won't it for

a him the

request money, friendship

and if

friendship, ground,

I can't the that the need

on more difficult may explain speaker this also serve

hence

Here the hearer

hint to the

as a mechanism service that

can be used by the request. making at a At the the form

why he cannot can then enables claim

same time

he was not to arrive

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

here the to Note is the

indirect will

vendor sell that obvious least bit it. it

want

he has is to May I

also

What is that

may not

whether use the

he has direct please?

perfectly the vendor

acceptable has P.

have

P.

impolite.

To view a the

summarise

the

indirect in to

strategies the sense

for

requests:

we

may :

a request of

as a "plan" operations plan, the

used by Allen In order

(1983,1987) to execute type is the willing hearer is

sequence request that

achieve know

a goal. (depending and that is

we need to hearer finding

upon the hearer because to do P.

of

request) to may solved form perceive Politeness will do P. not

can do P, this out he is

the

However, want to

a problem willing above. by the execution we do not

tell the

us that hint

not

This

by using type of in

schema described is determined

The exact obstacles of want the to

surface that request. test for we

the the

request way of

a successful mean that

considerations directly. of request totally

incompatibility The idea

plans

or

schemas with that

also speech

explains acts,

prehence

requests the

as something

compatible (1983)

assertion act

made by Levinson theory is incorrect.


connected surface

pre-sequences

challenge

speech

The requests:

other is

question how is the

with form

the decoded

strategies as

surrounding

a request?

Brown assertion

and Levinson that a hint

(op. violates

cit. the

p.

213)

are

incorrect

in It

their does

maxim of

relevance.

-212-

not, truely hence

for

if

it

did,

it

would

be impossible

to

distinguish behaviour will the be hearer

from and

irrelevant that

responses. and a hint to

We assume co-operative relevance we assume current maxims that

sequencing when it giving

obeyed. will

Therefore recognise Having often indirect he

as relevant spent

the

context. requests and why they some types are other that

some time indirectly,

examining it is

performed speech were the want

worth

examining certain for other example hearer appears The get the

acts.

Searle

identified indirect: or want

thought

conventionally speaker's wish

sentences will to do be of to that P; a a do he the

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

communication act is that most to

desired an attempt the

effect hearer fact

it

and in hearer

cases,

speaker is similar of that

conveys to the

the

do P. the

This

case

where

directly that directly by the do P is perform; Almost the the it (to P.

states Thus it is speech that it

purpose

an assertive: another state with way the the speech or

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

cognitive utterance: act an or and the it

The problem not it clear is

which

whether all directives wants states be clear

a suggestion in

example. fact this, do force wishes or P, that if

convey the hearer

one form to do P

speaker

speaker not

directly to act state to the

that hearer

he wants with

might

what

use classical this

speech cognitive tends the its

theory (e. g.

terminology) should as it

speaker request

express

be a

a command). is

Hence it for in

come over to interpret

rather the direct

impolite. form of

There the

a tendency state or

hearer most

cognitive

imposing

(speech

act)form,

i. e.

as an order Another question (41)

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

you to hearer hearer to is

make so much noise? doing not do P, the speaker

By questioning is implying Further forms such (42) that

reasons

why the rather

he would

the

do P. something include

ways of as: I ask/tell

asking

someone not

Must

you to

take

out

the

garbage?

-213-

suggest

that

the

reason the in state

why this speaker and has

form

is

used that to do

is the so.

that

there hearer This is odd if is

is will

contract normally extra acceptable were does no P.

between do P and knowledge as it

hearer failed to P. but and it

this

case relating

an

This would that

form be

barely there

is

not

very

polite, speaker

assumption

between

hearer

hearer

normally

Two questions indirect speech

remain acts

with to

this the

approach: Gricean with

firstly, maxims and

how do the secondly, reference

relate of

how can we measure to indirect speech

levels acts?

politeness,

particular

6.6

Indirect

Speech Acts

and Pragmatic

Maxims

Possibly maxim because take is is of

the

two and

most the

important sequencing if a rational relevance

pragmatic maxim.

maxims These are is it the

are

the

relevance they are

paramount going to

inviolable to

conversation because without (that

place. a violation speaking the

We have of with the

assume

there speaker If we

communicative identifiable by Searle

presumption communicative as a response

some

intent). to

consider

example

used

a proposal:

(43) then not with

I have this

to

study appears If

for to

my exams, violate the the relevance maxim, it does

although in fact the

do so. relevance maxim

we take

sequencing

maxim in

conjunction is so. The

maxim then may be defined and appropriate of the

we will in

see why this of a

sequencing primary ensures as

terms

pairing acts.

between It also

speech the

acts

secondary

speech

continuation new topic a question maxim, and is

primary-secondary To change is

sequence topic

as well when of an the the its

controlling to

introduction. expected also

answer

seen as a violation evasive. the It discourse

sequencing relevance coherence. The as

and is

seen as being that give

is

sequencing

maxims

sincerity

maxim ensures they obey is also intend this to

that carry

when people them out.

do things Clearly it

such is

make promises, to It

desirable insincerity. not push

maxim to of requires

because ensure this that maxim.

violation an utterance For of

implies does when by

desirable a violation response

someone into the

example, commitment

making

a request,

some form

-214-

the then which

hearer. he is The either

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

co-operate then (1983)

other the a arose and The

and beliefs, Allen

sometimes described that plans goals.

quantity computer as a

has that of

be violated. "helpful" the enable

produced inferring to

responses: goals achieve

those and those

result

speaker's them to

providing example

information used was:

(44)

Traveller: Rochester?

Can you tell

the

time

of

the

next

train

to

(45) In a sense, to (46) (47) (48) (49) Strictly is directly

Clerk: the the T: T: C: C:

At

18.30

from response

platform is

5. it is not a strict

clerk's

"indirect": of me the the time next

answer

indirect (Direct) (Indirect) (Direct) (Indirect) it

interpretation Canyou tell

question. of the ...? to

What time At 18.30 At is in 18.30

does

the

train

...?

from

platform because

5. the it it direct also makes it response includes a form in

speaking coded information speech providing

not the

indirect surface

form, argue

but that the the being

additional of that asks indirect it for. is

and one could act. It also

violates than

quantity question

maxim strictly

more information is set

Here the

a conflict maxim.

up between the

co-operative maxim is sincerity

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-

however. usually walking ticket. save

example, one-day of most

I travel ticket. Kings people Cross,

London City only the

distance However,

rail

would a place:

and could card.

themselves following

money by buying often takes

composite

a travel

So the

-215-

(50) (51) (52) (53) The

P: Clerk: P: Clerk:

A return

to

Kings to

Cross

please. underground?

Do you want No (Provides principle

use the

ticket) obviously has to involve certain

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

a question certain something

answer.

These

when

indirect that is

strategies: known to the

a hint hearer,

sometimes e. g.

asserting

(54)

Its

raining

hard

tonight form that

isn't

it

(Can I have a request to the

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

quantity following (Violation

maxim hints: of the

has

been

coincidental; raining

consider heavily

tonight.

quantity

(56) The second not first

maxim) . I'm really involves does

short

of money at of the

the

moment. maxim, the violation choice. not to violated, be thought that but the

a violation not. This

quantity that

probably

suggests there is is

occurs

as a strategy, The maxim of reasons. a liar. does

but

because

no other should

truthfulness It If is the to not

one that

for of the asks the or

obvious as being hearer the

generally asks

acceptable the hearer or if

speE.ker tell

something the to

not to

want

the that

speaker, they of do not either do.

speaker do, to then tell the is very

hearer is

do something with speaker but the

want

hearer

faced the

prospect

refusing Alternatively,

do whatever can lie,

wants

him to of these

hearer desirable. A possibility acceptable, direct the thing.

neither

alternatives

violation that indeed e. g. of

of the

the

maxim of manner will be

results

in

greater It is

speaker

misunderstood. a warning to

necessary Watch is out!

when shouting However, but being

use a very form a bad be

form, maxim It

when using this evasive, is

an indirect not but always it

manner

violated, with

may be associated with maxim being of tactful politeness

may also

associated The

or polite. assumes that the speaker uses the

-216-

correct this against proliferation become argument, separate to

level maxim this

of

politeness.

Leech

(1983)

has attempted (op. likely cit. to pragmatic some that If it virtue Chinese becomes then way.
terms

to 4)

analyse argue in will this a

further. approach of

Brown and Levinson because with the it result There is

p. result

maxims

that is

theory in

totally because maxims

unconstrained. Gu (1990) those

has indicated by Leech. for every in

requires necessary we are

to

defined maxims

define

new politeness attempting


alternative which strategies. explain acts for for

language the wrong


in have

possibly
The other their attempt threatening out,

to

view
is to what

politeness
represent Brown and they in

politeness Levinson appear terms

of

the in their face

maxims, set of to

is

attempted in and

However everything three reasons: appears the

misguided of as face Ide

firstly, to involve of face

(1986)

pointed of all it is often for

Japanese

example,

a greater does not Thirdly, maxims acts someone

element match

discernment. cultures possible result example information in a (see to very

Secondly, the realise good arguments

concept and

examples the

above). other speech

tensions reasons act that prefer

between why indirect

that are used, to

speech that

attempts to keep

to to

force

reveal

they

themselves.

The morality. speaker putting something want the to

final There ought the

maxim are to

(used two

by Bach and Harnish) to this, firstly the where

is

the things

maxim that

of the

aspects

not

reveal. into the

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

The maxim of for hinting

comes into a request. is indirect

when considering

strategy A difficult

when making question in of terms scales: of

remaining particularly

how

can speech

we acts?

measure Leech

politeness, (op. cit. i) ii) iii) iv)


v)

) suggests

a set

The Cost-benefi-c The Optionality The Indirectness The Authority


The Social

Scale. Scale. Scale. Scale.

Distance

Scale.

The cost-benefit hearer (Leech hearer of op. (of

scale with

is

a measure the utterance. these

of

the

cost

or benefit the

to

the

complying cit. having

For

example involves

utterance to the

p. 107) to

Peel

potatoes On the

a cost

do some work).

other

hand an utterance

-217-

such hearer. cost hardly as is it

as

Have Given

another in their

sandwich bare form

has as

an

obvious

benefit when these sandwich on the hearer there

to is

the a is

imperatives as Peel another

to

the

hearer, On the Leech from cost in

an utterance other hand out hearer

such Have

potatoes is scale and there polite

polite. stands.

points to

that to

somewhere benefit to

there is

a change

a general

increase

politeness.

The speaker than the

optionality gives you the the like

scale hearer. to sit

is Sit

concerned down!

with

how much choice the hearer the less speaker is.


of how at

the choice gives

gives

Would hearer,
The

down? The more choice (in


can to

more polite
scale has

general)

the

utterance
in terms to

indirectness the behind authority has over the hearer the

be measured make in order

many the

inferences intention The speaker scale for hearer Of the is 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

distance speaker speaker has and

the

overall

respectfulness

hearer, plus the other five of its but throw of

based factors factors, authority; own the some all right

upon

familiarity as respect already I it two do not appears factors

such I

have but -

considered accept to are of of come of

degree in factors to first for next

indirectness about some

measure other In

first light to the

order

on measures strategies act which

politeness, indirectness

return used the

that upon

one section.

particular

speech

shall

expand

6.7

A Schematic

Model

of

the

Speech Act

"Request"

Throughout speech are acts based in

the

thesis, idea

I have been developing of states or cognitive

model states

of that

upon the order the to:

necessary i) ii)

determine determine think in

underlying the to to

intent

behind to

an utterance. know, believe act. types of or

what order

speaker

needs

make a particular some hearer extent, the

speech possible

iii)

determine, response that speaker

the

may make. beliefs, intentions, wants

i)

says

that

the

communicates

-218-

etc.

to

the

hearer. to the

For

example, that

when he

requesting wants the

P, the hearer

speaker to do

communicates something. ii) enable example, hearer iii) order is

hearer

a mutually the speaker

shared to

set

of

facts

about type speaker

an of

utterance speech act. that

that For the

make a particular a request, the

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

certain understand in that to

things the

hearer's

speech

example, possible speaker speaker's


I of in an put

making the

an assertion, hearer will

speaker him.

knows that This enables

recognize in P.

a response

which

effectively

questions

belief
this

information schema. I show the then the the

together used range the of

in

Chapter

Three

in

the

form state

outline

communicated possible original account surface

cognitive that act.

Chapter could

Four make Five

to to I

response speech of how

the Then

hearer in

speaker's a sketchy map onto

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

together add to the

with the

an

pragmatic "schematic delivered plan is

maxims, plans" within

necessary determine

schema act A

speech community.

should schematic the of

a particular plan of action

language that cognitive with the is

an outline of form the

used to state in

ensure terms norms.

successful the most

expression appropriate

a particular in accordance plan for

politeness speech act

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

P))) -do(H P) -> -P)

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

tells hearer know

us to

what do P).

is

being Secondly

communicated it the done, tells speech us act:

(that what that that to wants

the the if the

speaker speaker the speaker Perhaps hearer knows

wants needs hearer does we do the

before do P, it

generating won't to fact get

doesn't not should P. want

furthermore that the he has speaker that to. to add a in the

the also

hearer add it the

believe that the not

do

P. the

to that

Finally, may In

includes but to to the is this does this

fact have

speaker

hearer

do P,

addition the form speaker within plan him: a the to

we need the

schematic the The hearer most ultimate that

plan

that

enables surface the

deliver language to

request community. to the

acceptable aim we (such (such of want as as for about or use that

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

may be for giving the us

a request hearer a lift to in state is

for do

information something

request salt ensure or

a car), of affairs of allows as

a request comes something) us requesting to

that that

a certain someone gives, other to is and do

requesting that There gives this the are us

informed sells or such

hearer probably permission there speaker distance if the is

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

between hearer subject for with the of is to

speaker not able

hearer if

a loss

we ask supply us if

something what hearer will that the the

we want, is unwilling

Worse, a situation schema

incompatibility preconditions request, may even something us the the be that following:

Therefore request pattern problem wrong i)

ensures

established one example

before of the this.

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)

want(S do(H P)) poss


will

P=a
(do(H

transfer

of ownership

of an object

Preconditions:

(do(H P))
P))

has (H P)

ii) case willing

also the

includes

acts

that problem in

could exists

be

immoral of

or

illegal, the

in hearer

which is

same basic to do the act

whether

question.

If the

we take

the

first is standard

case, that

that the

of

a request

for

information, the is:

then speaker

precondition the

hearer form time,

knows whatever for such requests

requests, (57) (58)


In both

indirect me the the

Can you tell Have you got


cases, In the certain the in (It to is denote meaning;

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

speaker cases, information which worth both of

condition, the speaker

reasons forms

confidentiality, appropriate. can have be used

case noting ability both

the here and

first that

modal

auxiliary and and hence requesting

permission, ability

a double )

questioning

permission.

I have in which

already the

given

an outline the

strategy hearer to to must

for do

the

second

case The the

speaker of the to

requests hearer's do P.

something. overrides the such as play cost of

precondition hearer's willingness distance important to salt the at (in ability

willingness The speaker presumably obligation Chinese

do P judge

hearer's social as the an act the The

to

do P based some societies e. g.

on factors

comes into the

constituent, hearer the will to (lending table also the fact is of

society), cost,

money has a high minimal cost

whereas a social a

passing nicety. )

and is to use

speaker referring this kind

judge that I

whether the suggest hearer

hinting a has

strategy request their of own

has serviced everyone

before.

that

-221-

threshhold by use of

as to

whether but

they the

use the rough Distance


to use hints of

hinting

strategy

or

request

a question, to
apply using Speaker

formula > Threshhold


a hinting themselves that strategy take is bad or the for to form him make of: and

Cost
seems to

Hearer
when

- Social
deciding

a request i)

a question. states

The a state

affairs

that waiting ii)

the

hearer for this

can rectify. bus. ) a state of affairs

(e. g.

I'm

getting

very

wet

Speaker

states

that

he would be home in

like bed

to with

see obtain. this An obvious seems refuse rude to (59)


I suggest

(e. g. ) to ask at

I really

need to

cold.

question in

this

point the

is

why a hinting would not

strategy normally

a situation the is

where

hearer

service The salt


that that thing the this the as

request? next to

e. g. you and I can't


by making be willing might

reach
a hint, to

it.
the speaker this is to which

might hearer hinting norms

be because might that of not the social

implies the same

do P and not

hearer

be willing something

observe might be

accepted as related given why rather

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

we assume necessary In small if situations the

that to

a question social hearer, form

request? however use

distance it is

cost

a request

an acceptable

indirect

exists.

Additionally, the form of of salt) such is that it

a problem uses

with

the of

bald

imperative

(i. e. that

pass a

no form the salt?

address is

and I suggest it uses

as Can you pass (There as a polite used to is

used because it

a form the use that this are

address. "you" is

a possibility form in old

that English, distance can is

may stem from in in the same

way

"vous" is

indicate

social The modal

French,

however others inappropriate,

pure

speculation). loaded in

used because use

pragmatically e. g will. The dependent (60) three It may also

ways that

makes their

indirect (Sinclair Can you

form:

Can

you

do

P?

may

be

contextually

and Coulthard juggle with

1975), three

e. g. objects? (Speaker holding

skittles) be ambiguous, e. g., speaker to hearer in a Japanese

-222-

restaurant: (61) Can you speak for Japanese? food) (To Hearer who shows a marked

preference

Japanese

The final or is use something

form

of

request

is

where hearer. of

the

speaker The form

wants of

to

have

possessed

by the type

indirection is to the take item

heavily In

dependent a situation then P?

upon the where the

transaction is willing

that to

place. to the

the

hearer

sell

speaker,

form:

Have you got is to perfectly borrow

acceptable. something apply hearer's distance

On the

other

hand,

if then

the the

speaker same sort

wants of to and be

owned by the as do the willingness is not

hearer, where do P.

considerations assess the the social

case to

the If near

speaker the cost

attempted is great may

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

indirection the following desired the room.

exist forms: effect

in

connection

with

requests.

seem to

Speaker you to

states leave states act. get

of

request.

e. g.

want

ii)

Speaker requesting we'll the all

or emphasises e. g. cancer. that If

a precondition stop of

state smoking, the case

of

the then

you don't

(Specification if the hearer

where

speaker

states

doesn't

do P, then

-P will iii) Speaker request, the P), case

obtain) states this of the is communicative same as the the act directly. effect, is: bel(S (For but a in

the

desired

an assertive, what is being

desired

effect is:

bel(H P) ).

whereas

communicated

There Although these by

are the is

various strict

reasons definition it

why these of

forms acts

might the direct

be first

used. of of

speech

cases

indirect,

come across

as a very

form

-223-

speaking. performative argument many to speech

The

third

case

in

particular the to greater such as

is reason state or the

almost why there desired

akin is

to such

the an of

hypothesis. is that acts that it directly a surface is

Perhaps possible with form

effect

lesser

success,

however

suggest

(63) has

Leave

the

room

an underlying (64) I imper

structure that you leave the room that the reason is desired that effect. why in many many Hence

is

in

my opinion act it is verbs possible

misguided.

I suggest

speech cases

can be expressed to directly

performatively express the

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,

I believe first I case, want

that

the

moon is

made of

green

cheese.

you to

believe

that

the

moon is

made

of

green

expressing couldn't I request I want these in

the

desired in

effect the

of

the

speech

act,

the

be clearer that

directive room,

case:

you leave leave very the

the room.

you to are

of

forms

much to

the case

point with the

and assert person

are

somewhat very the

politeness. giving is very the sincere case act

The analogous impression in their

seems making

that beliefs. when the

second of the to is If the

arises

speaker of of the act

gives itself.

some I varies with

as an indirect for using is this

form type

that

reasons

indirection For example

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

request/ask/tell. appears to doing the the be P. desire speaker to

behind

draw

attention

consequences is also

hearer to

not

When making to give not

a request the want hearer to

possible (the

emphasise that

choice that the

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

speaker not want

feels to
acts know

he has no right put him under


similar believe emphasising of be

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

yield you won't is

(Assert) In that Similar act this case

me but the the

the is of

speaker little indirection reason

there types verb.

likelihood can :_or wants

hearer for almost to one

believing every be

found

The particularly

indirection to

appears

speaker

emphasise

precondition.

There already (Maltby asking known.

are

also to

cases the

where

what I gave it

is an

requested/asserted example of the plead/beg speaker was

is

known

hearer. where

and Boulblil for, but the

1989) reason

was known what speaker

was not

why the

was pleading

6.8

Summary

In indirect consisted form beliefs expresses deontic of

this

section, acts.

I have The

attempted final

to

deal

with of

the a

problem speech in of

of act the

speech of what or his

description contained express an in

a schematic the speaker

plan

which to

an action terms the

wants

their speaker or

wants. belief

Hence when making in P. This are belief also that to act. to

assertive,

may be modified a set of two

by modal preconditions things:

operators. cognitive the speaker

There

(presupposed things order states sort example not of that to

states) needs speech

express

those about a set in of the For may

know or to Secondly, determine receive speaker for this. a presumed of is

have thought they (to from include

make a given that enable

the that

speaker they will the prepared contains happen the the

some extent) the the hearer. hearer

response with

an assertive, him and is act also

knows that

believe

The speech the speaker act.

effect, uttering associated the

that

is

what

hopes

will

as a result speech act to

a particular with a set act in the These

speech of the

Additionally, which enable

plans, most

speaker form

deliver by

speech within maxims. the

appropriate imposed

surface

operating pragmatic face,

constraints plans include

upon him by a set of

of

considerations

maintaining

authority

-225-

relationship between the type


This meaning use an in within extension Chapter This conversational those particular Finally, explanation I of

between the of two. response

speaker

and hearer enable act.


works

and the the

social to

distance recognise

The same plans to


plan act

speaker

the
as verb

speech
a whole as it

schematic of a speech a particular of Five. theory the

as

an explanation in This some may be detail

of

the its

describes

language base model

community. of speech act

considered produced

generation

not analysis

only

dissolves (at but the it within is

the

distinction level)

between and how community. as an a

theories analysis,

appropriate also a of

discourse act is to

describes language importance

be performed that this work

believe of linguistic

some

politeness.

-226-

References

Abbeduto

L.

and

Rosenberg

S. (1985). of Know and

Children's Other

Knowledge Cognitive

of

the J.

Presuppositions Child Akmajian A, Lang.

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

Introduction Cambridge, Allen J. F. (1983). utterances. Computational MIT Press.

Language

Discourse.

MA.

Allen

J. F. (1987). Cummings.

Natural Menlo Park.

Language

Understanding.

Benjamin-

Anderson

A. R. (1958) Logic.

.A Mind

Reduction 67,1958, Planning Press.

of

Deontic

Logic

to

Alethic

Modal

pp. 100-103. English Sentences. Cambridge

Appelt

D. E. (1985). University

Cambridge.

Astington

J. W. (1988a). Acts. J. Child

Children's Lang.

Production

of

Commissive

Speech

15, pp. 411-423 Understanding Lang. of the Speech Acts

Astington

J. W. (1988b) . Children's J. Child of Promising.


J. L. (1962). Press. How to

15, pp. 157-173


with words. Oxford University

Austin

do things

Bach

K.

and Speech

Harnish Acts.

R. M. (1979). MIT Press.

Linguistic Cambridge Mass.

Communication

and

Berry

M. (1975) . and Systems. Is M. (1982) . Workshop,


J. K. and

Introduction Batsford.

to

Systemic London.

Linguistics

I:

Structure

Berry

Teacher Toronto

an Unanalysed 1982.
The J. Jef

Concept?

Ninth

Systemic

Bock

Hornsby

M. E. (1981). Ask A 1983,7, and Reply Tell. to

Development Child Lang.

of

Directives:

How Children Boguslawski A. (1983). Pragmatics.

8, pp. 151-163. Journal of

Verscheuren.

pp. 633-635.

Boyd

J.

and

Thorne of

Journal

J. P. (1969) . 5,1969, Linguistics,

The Semantics pp. 57-74.

of

Modal

Verbs.

-227-

Brown

P.

and Levinson Interaction. Markers Cambridge. in

S. (1979). In Scherer

Social K.

Structure, H.

Groups

and

and Giles

(eds. ) Social Press.

Speech.

Cambridge

University

Brown

P.

and Levinson Language

S. C. (1987). Cambridge

Politeness: University

Some Universals Press. Cambridge.

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

P. L. (1981). Comparing 8, p. 329-345.

Children's Child and

Understanding Adult

Indirect J.

Requests: Child Lang.

Comprehension.

Chisholm

R. M. (1963). Lo ic. Analysis


The

Contrary-to-Duty

Imperatives

and

Deontic

2 4,1963, pp. 33-36.


Acquisition Eight of and the Meaning J. of Modality Child in Lang.

Coates

J. (1988). Children

Aged

Twelve.

15, pp. 425-434.

Cohen P. R.

and Levesque ACL Chicago,

H. J. (1985). July Script Stories. Computer 1985.

Speech Acts

and Rationality.

pp. 49-60. Computer 116. 1978. Systems. Volume II. Understanding University

Cullingford of

R. E. (1978). Newspaper of

Application: Report Science. to

Yale

Department Date C. J. (1983) . Addison . Discourse Hillsdale


Dreyfus H. (1979) New York. .

An Introduction Wesley. Children's Reading,

Database

Mass. Acts. and In Freedle R. (ed. )

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

Neoscholastique Follesdal D. and

de Philosophie. Hilpinen
In and

pp. 517-553. Logic: An


Logic: Dordrecht. J. of

R. (1971) .
Hilpinen R. Readings. on

Deontic
(ed. )

Introduction. Introductory Fraser B. (1990). Pragmatics,

Deontic

Systematic

Reidel.

Perspectives 14,1990,

Politeness.

pp. 219-236.

Fraser

B.

and Nolan Linguistic

W. (1981). Form.

The Association Journal

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

Understanding. Gazdar G. and N. V. Goffman E. Good

University

Cambridge. In London. of the Public Smith

D. (1982).

On a Notion Knowledge. in Public:

Relevance. Press.

(ed. ) Mutual Relations Pelican. How to

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).

whimperative and Grice Semantics Logic )

question. 3: Speech

Acts.

Academic In Vol.

New York. and Morgan Acts.

H. P. (1975)

. J. L. (eds.

and

Conversation. and Semantics

Syntax

Speech

Academic Grosz B. J. (1979) Language Gruber J. (1975) . Language .

Press.

New York. and Objectives: IJCAI J. Tokyo. Issues 1979, Transition Lang. 2,513-527. in Natural

Utterance Communication. Performative Development.

pp. 1067-1076. in Child

Constative Child

Gu

Y. (1990).

Politeness

Phenomena

in

Modern

Chinese.

J.

of

Pragmatics, Halliday M. A. K. (1990) Arnold. Hayakawa

14,1990, An

pp. 237-257. Introduction to Functional Grammar.

. London.

S. I. (1969). Words. Verlag

Modern

Guide

to

Synonyms Darmstadt.

and

Related

Darmstadter
Logic: Dordrecht.

Bltter.
Introductory

Hilpinen

R. (1971). Readings.

Deontic Reidel.

and

Systematic

Hirst

W.

& Weil Meaning

J. (1982). of Modals. Words

Acquisition J. Child

of Lang.

Epistemic

and

Deontic

9, pp. 659-666. Press. I. Oxford. Lectures,

Holdcroft Holdcroft

D.

(1978).

and Deeds.

Clarendon Relevance

D. (1986a). Pragmatic

Conversational Workshop, Dubrovnik.

Holdcroft

D. (1986b). Pragmatic

Conversational Workshop, Dubrovnik.

Relevance

II.

Lectures,

Holdcroft

D. (1986c). Pragmatic

Conversational Workshop, Dubrovnik.

Relevance

III.

Lectures,

Holdcroft

D. (1986d). Pragmatic

Conversational Workshop, D'.:brovnik.

Relevance

IV.

Lectures,

-229-

Holdcroft

D. (1991). (ed. ) On and

Searle Searle Smith In Ablex

on Conversation. on Conversation.

In

Verscheuren John

J.

Benjamins Acts and and

Holdcroft

D.

P. W. H. (1990). Torrance 1990. H. (1985). Turns S.

Speech (ed. )

Computation. Computation. Houtkoop H. in and

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

(eds. ) Pragmatics Odense. Politeness: 14,1990,


Theory of of

and Linguistics.

University Kasper G. (1990). Issues.


Kautz H. (1985). Report Konolige K. (1985)

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

1985, pp. 502-508.


D. (1977). Conversation. of Politeness: Therapeutic Academic or Press. Minding Discourse: New York. Your P's

Fanshel as Logic

Psychotherapy Lakoff R. (1973) . The

and Ninth

Q's.

In

Corium

C.

et

al. of

(eds. ) Papers The Chicago

from Linguistic

The

Regional

Meeting

Society.
Le Bonniec G. (1974). Paris: Le Mouton. Raisonnement modal: etude

genetique.

Leech Leech

G.

(1983). G. (1987). London.

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,

Understanding TR170 1985.

-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

M. (1975) Winston Hill.

.A

Framework

for

Representing of Computer

Knowledge. Vision.

In

P. H. (ed. ) Psychology New York.

McGraw-

Polanyi

L. (1988). Discourse. 638.

Formal of

Model

of

the

Structure

of pp. 601-

Journal

Prgamatics

12,1988.

Pomerantz

A. (1978). operation Studies Interaction. of in

Compliment Multiple the Academic

Responses: Constraints. Organisation Press. In

Notes

on

the J.

Co(ed. )

Schenkein

of

Conversational

New York. A University Grammar of

Quirk

R.

and English.

Greenbaum Longman, . Lang. The

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

R. (1985). MIT Press.

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

H., Schegloff Systematics Conversation.

Turn-Taking

Language Toward Press.

pp. 696-735.1974. Theory of Speech Acts.

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

D. H. (eds. and and

Directions New York. Applying Journal

in

Sociolinquistics Schegloff E. A. (1988). Speech Act

Winston.

Presequences Theory 12,1988, Jefferson for to Ordinary

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

pp. 55-62. G. and Sacks in the H. (1977). Organization The of

Self-Correction Language H. (1973). Ethnomethodology:

Convesation. Sacks

53, pp. 361-382.1977. up Selected Closings. Readings. In

Opening

R. (ed. )

Harmondsworth. Everyday of Discourse Argument. Analysis, Academic Press. In vol T. 3. London. Cambridge University Van Dijk (ed. ) and

Discourse

pp. 35-46. Discourse

Markers.

Cambridge. N. S. Problem: Intelligence. pp. 45-33. Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. and Goodson J. L. (1978). of The Plan and

C. F., Sridharan Recognition Artificial 11,1978.

An Intersection Artificial

Psychology Intelligence

Searle

J. R. (1969). Cambridge.

Searle

J. R. (1979). University

Expression Press. Notes Cambridge.

and

Meaning.

Cambridge

Searle

J. R. (1986). Donahue Discourse

on Conversation. ) Contemporary Lawrence Veken

In Issues Erlbaum

Ellis in

D. G. Language

and and

W. A.

(eds.

Processing. Van Der Logic.

Associates. Foundations University of Press.

Searle

J. R.

and

D. (1985).

Illocutionary Cambridge.

Cambridge

Sidner

C. L. (1985). Recognition 1,1985,2.

Plan in pp-1-10The

Parsing

for

Intended

Response Intelligence

Discourse.

Computational

Sinclair

J. M. (1976). Form of

Sociolinguistic used in of Service

Significance Encounters.

of

the

Requests

Diploma

Dissertation.
Sinclair J. M. and

University
Coulthard the

Cambridge.
Towards by Teachers an Analysis and Pupils. of

R. M. (1975). English Press. Used London.

Discourse: Oxford

University

-232-

Smith

C. J. (1970). Detroit.

Synonyms

Discriminated

Gale

Research

Co.

Smith

P. W. H. Theory

and

Holdcroft of Speech at Issue.

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

and Wilson Theories of

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).

Cognition. Terasaki A. (1976) Social Science.

Blackwell. . Science

Oxford. Sequences Paper California, 99. in Conversation. of Social

Pre-announcement Working of

School

University

Irvine.

Verscheuren

J. (1983). Pragmatics

On

Boguslawski

on

Promise.

J.

of

1983,7, . Modal

pp. 629-632. Logic. Mind 60,1951, pp. 1-15. Oxford.


Verbs: A Semantic

Von Wright White

G. H. (1951) .

Deontic Thinking.
English

A. R. (1975)

Blackwell.
Speech Press. Act Sydney.

Wierzbicka

A. (1987). Dictionary.

Academic

Wilensky

R. (1978). Report 140.

Understanding Ph. D. Thesis. F. (1986). Norwood,

Goal-Based Yale University

Stories. 1978.

Research

Winograd

T.

and

Flores Ablex.

Understanding New Jersey.

Computers

and

Cognition.

-233-

Appendix

The considered idea extended dependent conjunction at a a very telephone of

material incomplete, speech into act

contained it pairings for is

in

the

appendix to in

must demonstrate Chapter it

at

best how can heavily

be the be

an attempt described discourse. analysis of this with

Four is

a structure a detailed act level.

However, discourse has only

upon with

markers been achieved

in

speech

pairs It

and starts

rudimantary

a recorded initiation a proposed and

dialogue

of

conversation, next section similar is specified is lines

indicating a description to as Form, those of

the of

response discourse Coulthard. Type 2)

pairs. grammar, The

The

along

Sinclair free used to

grammar using

a context commonly

(Chomsky specify

grammar, programming

Backus-Naur

computer

languages.

Sample

Dialogue

[1]

A:

Hello

there, - Report:

rang

you earlier to explain

but reason

you for

were not

out.

[Initiationl earlier]

Possibly

ringing

[2] D's two.

B:

Oh,

[Unexpected [Responsel]

propositional But we've been

content] in

I must

have been at and a half to

mum's. [12]

a good hour

[3]

A:

Oh [Unexpected shopping then

propositional [R2]

content]

well

[re-orientation]

I went

[4]

B: How uz things,

alright?

[13]

[5]

A:

Yes fine do coffee

[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

no bag meeting material] I thought

[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

waiting for his

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

has been much better

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

orientation] or not? [I10]

You know whether

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

have been yes

[R11]

A Structure

for

Discourse

The Form

notation to

used

in

this

section

is

based

upon BNF is

Backus-Naur a means of Based forward as is it the upon a

(BNF) used

represent

computer 2 (context cycle it it is

languages. free) possible is not of of

representing the

a Chomsky type

grammar. to quite the put

initiation-response for appears. which


(E2E3...

structure first

discourse. At the

However top of

as simple structure

level a set

transaction
Ep

consists
En)

exchanges:

where

there

must roughly at its

be with heart

at

least in

one the

exchange. conversation.

transaction The exchange

corresponds then has

a topic the has at form: its

initiation-response head a marker to

pairing. introduce

The the

preliminary topic, hence

exchange it has 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>)*

Initiation Chapter Four)

itself :

is

simply

a primary

speech

act

(defined

in

<initiation> Elaboration the primary

:: = primary normally occurs act.

speech when the

act speaker continues on after

speech

Each elaboration hence we have the

section structure:

may be connected

by a connective <elaboration> terminator indicates of that

marker, :: = the

<connective> sequence and is

primary occurs expecting

speech when the

act

The

initiation

speaker

he has finished

a response. speech of a act meta-

<terminator> The response

primary :. = <supplementary-marker> body is quite complex and may consist

-236-

section, Finally the hearer. it

a response

with

or without be followed

a preceding

response

marker. body from

may or may not

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

two meta-speech response

acts.

The meta

section

is

then

followed

by a normal

body.

<meta-section>
<meta-initiation>

:. _ <meta-initiation><meta-response>
:. _- primary speech act

<meta-response> The earlier response in the itself section).

:: = secondary consists of

speech

act speech act ( defined

a secondary

<response> (strictly describe primary

:: = secondary the idea

speech of

act context down free here grammar because to the

speaking the

using breaks must

discourse

structure speech 1 or used acts

and secondary

be typed sensistive

and hence grammar. )

can only

be represented The various

by a type markers

context are

as follows:

<topic-marker> The topic new topics marker of is

:: = By the a small By the set

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.

:: = expressive allows is the initiator

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>

The dialogue to be thought

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

a response: things, alright?

may be marks

extended, where they

although want to

sometimes, end using the

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

sections indicate A: I'll B: act] A: Insteada I'm

occcur

immediately that

after needs

the

initiation

part

and

something ringing

clarifying: actually [Elaboration] [Initiation] and

up about tomorrow V's?

tomorrow

do coffee Itchee - Not

morning. for

[Request

clarification

- Meta-speech

V's.

[Meta-speech

act

Clarify] -

B: Alright. markers information content. the for

[Response] orientation and what Schiffrin an unexpected the response as a (1987) calls

management They may also pattern. acts

often

indicate that

propositional does not of follow

indicate This

expected speech I rang


Oh But

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.

[Orientation] we've been

been and

a good

a half

[Initiation].

A:

Oh

[Orientation] then.

well

[Information

management]

went

shopping