Speech Act Theory. 1. 1.1 Introduction. 1. 1.2 The Seminal Work of Austin. 2. 1.3
Searle's. Theory of Speech Acts. 3. 1.4 The Formal Theory of Speech Acts. 8.
Speech Act
Theory,
Discourse
Peter
Submitted
in
Accordance
Wilfred
with Doctor
Structure
Hesling
and Indirect
Smith
the Requirements of Philosophy
The University Department of September
Speech Acts
for
the
Degree
of
of Leeds Philosophy 1991
The Candidate that the work submitted confirms has been given where that appropriate credit made to the work of others.
is
his
own work and has been reference
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.
2.
Speech
Act
Theory
1
1.1
Introduction
1.2
The
1.3
Searle's
1.4
The
1.5
Indirect
1.6
A Critique
1.7
Sadock's
1.8
The
1.9
Some Criticisms
1.10
Computational
1
Seminal
Work
Theory
Formal
Speech of
Speech
8
Acts
19
Acts Searle's
Linguistic
Inferential
2.1
Introduction
Theory Approach
Approach of
Models
Speech
Act
Act
Acts
2.2
Linguistic
Acts
25
Theory
27 31
Acts
35
41
Approaches
Computational
2.4
Other
Structure
of
Discourse
Intelligence
Discourse
3.1
Introduction
3.2
Speech Acts
3.3
A Description
of
54
Structure
Approaches
to
56
Structure
The Deconstruction
45
48
Analysis
Artificial
in
Discourse
45
Models
Discourse Issues
to
Analysis
Conversational 2.3
23
Theory
Speech
of
Speech
to
to
Speech
Speech
of
41
Discourse
3.
of
3
Acts
Structure
Discourse
2.5
Speech
of
Theory
2
Austin
of
60
Analysis
Speech Act
Verbs
69
69 79
as Schemas of
Assertive
Speech Acts
87
3.3.1
Claim
87
3.3.2
Assure
88
3.3.3
Argue
90
3.3.4
Inform
91
3.3.5
Conjecture
93
3.3.6
Swear
94
3.4
3.5
Commissive
5.
95
Promise
95
3.4.2
Consent
97
3.4.3
Refuse
98
Directive
Speech Act
Verbs
100
3.5.1
Request
100
3.5.2
Tell
102
3.5.3
Require
104
3.5.4
Permit
105
Declarative
3.7
Evidence
and Expressive Support
to
Child
4.
Verbs
3.4.1
3.6
the
Speech Act Cognitive
Verbs
Thesis
What is
3.9
Formal
the
107
Cognitive
Speech Acts
State
Hypothesis?
110
and Expressives
117
Conclusions
Speech Acts
119
and Discourse
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Cognitive
4.3
Speech Act
4.4
Discourse
4.5
The Thesis
106
in
Language
3.8
3.10
Speech Act
Structure
120
120 States
and
Context
125
Schemas and Logical Pairs
and Cognitive
Schemas
129
States
146
Restated
From Speech Act
to
5.1
Introduction
5.2
The
5.3
Speech Acts
5.4
Modal
152
Utterance
156
156
Four
Basic
Sentence
Types
and Sentential
Structure
and Cognitive
Auxiliaries
159
162
States
166
Will
166
Can
170
May
170
Shall
172
Should,
Ought
173
and Must
5.5
The Logical
and Pragmatic
Use of
5.6
Speech
and Discourse
Markers
5.7
On a Taxonomy
5.8
Summary and Formal
Acts
Generation
for
Modal
Speech Acts Model
of
Auxiliaries
173 177 180
Utterance 181
6.
Speech Acts
Indirect
6.1
Introduction
6.2
Searle's
6.3
A New Theory
185
185 Theory
Indirect
of
6.3.1
Introduction
6.3.2
Indirect
6.3.3
Pragmatic
Speech Acts
Indirect
of
193
Speech Acts
193 Speech Acts Maxims,
and Authority
Politeness
195
and Indirect 196
Speech Acts 6.4
Politeness
and Face
6.5
Strategies
for
197
Indirectness
Based on Cognitive 202
States 6.6
Indirect
6.7
A Schematic
6.8
Summary
Speech Acts Model
of
and Pragmatic the
Speech Act
Maxims "Request"
213 217 224
226
References Appendix
187
1
233
Figures
and Tables
Figure
1.1
The Semantic
Tableau
for
Assertives
13
Figure
1.2
The Semantic
Tableau
for
Commissives
14
Figure
1.3
The Semantic
Tableau
for
Directives
15
Figure
4.1
The Basic
Table
4.1
Conversation
The Structural
for
Action
Relationships
of 137
ASSERT/STATE(P)
Table
4.2
The Structural
for
Relationships
140
SUGGEST(P) Table
4.3
The Structural
for
Relationships
140
FORBID(P) Table
4.4
The
Structural
State
Table
4.5
bel(S
Possible want(S
126
Relationships
P))
the 144
pP)
Hearer do(H
of
Responses
to 144
Acknowledgements
I
started
how long
realising into
be put
it.
I started
out
and only
October
1985,
or how much effort
take
would
in
thesis
with
slowly
have
would
some vague
notions
moved into
the
little
Natural
of
area
to
of
speech
took
place
theory.
act
There during from
my work Leeds
Leeds
on the
thesis.
The first
City
to
were
no real
University.
However,
I will
station
University.
problems the
if
be sorry
not
to
develop
to
located
think
I don't
my thoughts
have to
far
from
often
very
so
were
about
away
immediately
proved
journeys
train
me time
allowed
was a move
This
being
with
that
these
of
much more time
Indeed
they
as
my life
to
changes
as I was allowed
valuable
certain
ideas.
at
Doncaster
wait
again. The
second
Christopher, joyous
took
posed
do anything
first
to
full
time
job,
With
respect
thank
at
work
thank
was often
difficult
apsects
Sachiko
of
of
the
left it
stimulating
son
although
a the
of
during
night
me too
exhausted
impossible
almost
and weekends
at a
and with
much done.
get
I must
thesis,
some
within
of
course
the
of
I would
theory.
act
and
my
completion
me through
guiding
speech
for
Ide
to
parts
for
Holdcroft
evenings
of
one single
found
I also
various
the
frequently
the
to
to
through
and this thesis.
1988,
December
slept
birth
the
was
threat
home during
it
David
mysterious
life
on the
in
major
never
of
year
my life
place a
Christopher first
in
change
this
event,
thesis. his
major
Polytechnic
there
and
two
were
beneficial,
to
it
Processing
Language
on my Ph. D.
work
more
like
also
me
an
interest
to
me
the
to in
politeness.
idea
I
must
thank
of
face
and for
My thanks Leeds
to
University
some aspect and Peter Peter
of
members of
whom I have
with
my thesis.
the
admit Duble
the
some of the
that
I spent
Muzio
Department at
Harry
more time
Gambit
or
at
some stage
Potts,
Timothy
Chinese
examples.
Philosophy
had discussions
I mention:
I must about
explaining
me with
providing
various
Millican.
Millican
Sim for
my wife
the
on
Lewis
talking
to
Marshall
Attack. I University,
acknowledge who also
with provided
thanks
the
me with
financial a light
support timetable
of load
City in
my
second
year
support
of
I patience and
Leeds
and for
using
Only
I
that
I
a scholar
to
the
owe an consider
and
thank
putting
in
the
early
stages
the
fact
that
as the
rest
of
up with
the
of
her
financial
the
acknowledge
Sim for
my wife
(as well
thesis.
forebearance
Saturday
on Friday, the
and
be
I would
week)
word processor.
I must
whom
grudgingly
Polytechnic
evenings
Finally, to
I also
like
would
Sunday
upstairs
there.
of
course
immense it
a gentleman.
thank
debt
an honour
of to
my supervisor
What
gratitude. know
David
and
to
have
Holdcroft
can worked
I
say? with
-1-
1.
Speech
1.1
Act
Introduction
The exactly as
Theory
a speech
a theory
that been
used
use
language,
within
problems
that
developed
by
cognitive
level.
the
of
that
manner
theory
remainder
and
in.
Chapter as is
speech
act
may be
included
an
looks
at
Harnish
and
particular theories
of
of
is
the in
at
have
that
discourse.
(Bach
claim
Chapter
attention
to
the
linguistic
politeness.
and use
acts Harnish of
thrown
and
Artificial
a by
theory
act
describes Chapter Six
might
acts
Five
indirect
be
what
the acts
extends
this
to
pragmatic 1979).
fit
speech
attempts
using
up
may
of how
act
into
research
description
Four
been
of
of
speech
By
held
speech
how speech
indirect
is
am assuming
traditional
of
forms.
a
1979).
an exploration
surface
at
a non-rule-like
is
of
particular
view
how speech
a model
to
out
theory. I
a description
Chapter
set
some detail
Linguistics
a kind
provide
in
includes
form"
acts
acts
which
describing. in
in
several
speech
achieved
problems
particularly
recently
speech
will
theory,
rejecting
One looks
Two
to
comprehensive
is
has
paying
a
(Dreyfus
the
of
a "logical
explanation
Bach
some
Three
represented
it"
do Chapter
of
Structure
and
just
Chapter
Discourse
exists,
theory
to
I
explored
act
ways
up
sufficient
also
the
more
of
be
speech
understanding
research
Intelligence.
in
acts
act
thesis,
what
originated
thrown
framework,
will
to
explain
view
this
and
that
a level
outlines
recent
In
to
and
longer
no
structure
approach
"we
is
Theory
has
use
explore
Act
speech
traditional
a wider
speech
language
Language
linguistics
use.
One issue
such
of
in
the
within
indirect
that
or The
idea
acts
a cognitive
Dreyfus
by
language
Speech
wider
Searle
discourse
to
that
that
be.
then
This
be to
will
since
context
and
of
attention
priori
but
indicate
speech
taking
should
models.
Austin
thesis
Philosophy
a wider
an explanation
role
or
the
computational
explore
is
act
this
of
within
we can
in
direction
main
It speech
provide
maxims also acts
as pays in
-2-
1.2
The Seminal
Speech his
Act
William
(Austin
1962).
Austin
fact
of
all
to
described
also
... at
are
uttering
of
op. cit.
was
and
he
that
stated
they
are
things
that
described
and
on
utterances
with
to
He
analysed
to
he
Although
for
utterances,
happy
entirely
both
utterances
I
But here; in
the
other
(Austin
op.
sense
who have
Austin all
analysed
in
wrong
Having
made
to term he
anything the
doing
the
of
of
described
as
entailments.
about
utterances
performative
and
is
there
at
least
there
is
has
often
a very
he was
ought,
performative
say that
Austin
presupposition.
and
I
cut
constative
involving
to
he
performative
constative
entails
the
of
clear
of
and
that
notion
wrong
utterances
made
want
two
apparently
'implications'
entailment
go
performatives,
performative
I promise
type doctrine
This
this
ship...,
Additionally
this
of
implicature of
name this
with
performative
have
that
I
as
discoveries
the
not
constative
parallel
any close
parallel
cases... p. 54).
cit.
unease to
here
extend
his
could
some detail
nature
overlooked
a specific
be verified the
been
by
many
ideas.
by identifying
started
statements
a
However
performative.
go
with
attempted
the
which]
be
such
the
example,
of
fact.
[for
normally
and
sort
some
do not only
Austin's
do
entailment,
saw
He gave
'unhappy'.
as
compare 'certain
respect
of
constate
utterances
constative
with
utterances'.
that
view
a desire
a part
utterance
infelicities.
then
not
performative
be
between
went
of
'false'
distinction
the
because
and
is
or
utterances
so much can
as
is,
to
class
when
not
1955
p. 3)
this
called
in
He believed
of
or
and 'false'
would
here
referring
University
statements.
'report'
or
'true'
which
(Austin
in
which
a sentence
something.
summarised
some way.
statements
'describe'
action
in
had arisen
as verifiable
saying
He
by examining
problems
not
Harvard
at
be verifiable
to
statements
all
an
presented
straightforward
do not
J. L. Austin,
with
started
ought
utterances
"constative"
not
originated
many philosophical
treat
he
Theory
Austin
James Lectures
statement that
Work of
as true of
problem or
performative
false.
viz. He
statements,
that then but
-3-
then
to
attempted
types
of
loose all
dimension,
and he argued
1.3
Searle's
Theory
key
A Searle,
the
developing His
and from
differs
Searle
Holdcroft emphasis
illocutionary
(1978).
A
speech
The
act.
type
particular term
by
force
to
those
get
the
suggestion
would
carry
a stronger
force.
speaker
the of
central
plank
illocutionary
has
been
fit.
Searle
directions i)
of
fit
in
Word-to-World, state
fact
exhibits
World-to-Word, propositional
der
These the
where of
content
"four
in
the of
the of
the in
different
meaning
gradation directive
of
a
of
a
as by
the
then
action,
a
carry
would force formal
his
a
as
theory
1985). individual
with
notion
that
direction
of and
of four"
only
are:
direction
where
and
Another idea
the
fits
utterance
affairs
this
Veken
force.
are
to
the
concerned
is
about
illocutionary in
was more
there
language.
Austin and
a command
of
Van
theory
that
work
attempts
an
whereas
illocutionary
Searle's
maintains
existing
ii)
with
Searle
discussed
of
are
particularly
hand
now
sceptical
is
force
out
idea
and
is
Searle's
we accept
carry
the
(Searle other
by
promoted
that
theory,
less
and
acts
his
on the
acts
speech
force
for
approach
a form
if
used
of
is
Thus
veak
by
made
firstly
point
on the
act.
a
are
concerns
act
to
area
a rigorous This
a speech
hearer
it
somewhat
was
Searle
Searle
logic
Austin, speech
of
which
(1985).
distinction
and
was
illocutionary
acts.
speech
describe
to
was a
responsible
respects:
instead
second
Austin
of
and
an utterance.
this
Veken
Searle
preferring
placed
was required
in
locutionary,
of
description
in
several
whereas
distinction,
this
or unhappiness
problems
form
the
der
Van
and in
acts,
and
works
between
perlocutionary
into
important
Austin's
distinguished
of
that
dimension
who was primarily
theory
act
most
(1969,1979)
questions
Austin,
of
speech
known.
these
to
pupil
forces
many
He concluded
what
all
Speech Acts
of
response
that
to
way
had left
a truth/falsehood
illocutionary
of
book,
had a happiness
meaning; range
his
questions.
unanswered
force,
the
a more general
end of
an illocutionary
a locutionary of
of
in
he had examined
that
utterances
the
at
and,
and a lot
strands
study
relate
statements
ideas
these
world the
an
world.
independently
A statement
of
fit
the
fit. is
illocution.
altered
to
An example
of
-4-
such
an act
be
would
a directive
speech
act,
such
world
is
as
an
order. iii)
The
double
to
fit
the
being
The
According
to
we
dimensional
plain
are,
Searle
the
possibility When
I
direction speech
any
Austin
is
I
of
world.
those
where examples
is
is
which
denies
this
that to
speech
point the
Austin's it
of of
view
is
likely
that
language
of for
necessary
be
will
notion
"flattening"
the
with
this
later,
out
there
between
Searle
two-
a
then
uttered, however
alien
point
in
purely
words
likely
totally
plain
and
provide
lies
of
most
shall
two-dimensional
a
feelings)
relationships
issue
taken
(i. e.
and
my criticisms
as
have
name
no question
acts
possibilities,
something
Indeed
would
world
is
is word
language
referential
What
fit
acts.
into
other
summarise
of
I
fit.
that
view
no
further.
explored
by
utterance
between
his of
the
argues,
fit
expressing
between
of
altered
example:
there
expressive
direction the
accept
For
Where
of
Searle
is
speaker null
the
of
altered.
fit.
of
success
the
content so
the
when
SS Titanic".
achieving
of
items.
as
direction
null
the
If
propositional
the
ship
is
fit
of
represented
this iv)
direction
Searle's
theory. Searle
different to
types
is
point The
in
one
for
component
of
then been
of
fit
of
language
whole
direction
The
falls have
in
his
idea
whole
described
rests
on the as
of
the
point
of
is
taxonomy
able
illocutionary
The
act.
Searle's
of an act
of
of is
act
fit
of
theory.
a to
particular tell
people to
point
between to
central
However
a priori
of
He was
illocutionary
the
falls
be
a
The
the
whole
between fit
falls
direction
two-dimensional
of words
apart
possibilities of
notion
and if
it
the can
it
if
theory,
four
the
and
words
Searle's
apart.
assumption
a relationship
direction
the
force.
fit
above.
of
an assertive
direction
of
type
purpose
considers
the
(1979).
Searle
components
illocutionary
the
Differences
the
of
is
Searle
between
differences:
important
most
the
example, are.
world.
point
point
how things
2.
the
of
illocutionary
type,
the
differences
the
acts
important
twelve
Differences
describe
illocutionary
of
distinguish
1.
to
attempted
view
world. be
shown
The that
-5-
locutions
sometimes
serve
some purpose
than
other
to
the
to
relate
world. 3.
in
Differences
illocutionary
act
intention
may
in
(as
the
but
minor
that
are
a small
that
the
represent idea
is
in
pursued
illocutionary
point
far
than
to
strength if
that
the
one
issue
types
linear) the
question
scale,
or
distinction, describe
exactly
speech Differences
as
they
defining is
fairly
bearing
point. to
For
someone
issue Berry
the
types has
be
of (1982).
of
degree
others,
illocutionary
It
indeed
(or
of
purvey of
strength ignore
to
going raises
of
politeness
of
the
put non-
that
to
also
to
us
utterance
we are
acts
However,
enables
linear
of
intuitive
than
degree
lower
relative
position force
Searle the of
this
be
able
the
question
should
to
come
used to
nothing the
of
status
which
status
of
is
speaker
a
of
effectively and
hearer
it.
It
has
a
conversation,
but
this.
There
illocutionary
the
may make
status
of
speakers
about
say
strength
higher
a person
in
use
the
of
status
utterance
upon
very
Although
utterance. little
hearer
and
speaker
the
of
makes
relative
almost
an effect
example
or
illocutionary
that
to
is
assertive
the
of
appears
is.
act
insisting
be
point
of
considerations
sta,: us
clear
theory
appears
all
a different
if
the
assertion.
some
Searle
which
a
to
appears
types
important
difference,
on
Searle's
the
on the
this
This
theory. in
bear
assign
degree
the
onto
a speech
that
we can
force
of
whether
have
example,
act
5.
is
what
for
whether,
into
it
to
underlying
with
forceful
degree
point. but
states
examine
a stronger
different
act
assume
states.
clear
It
the
assertive
whether
illocutionary
the
of
of
illocutionary
same
to
of
I
say,
have
them
the
is
Hence
suggestion
the
we
an
be possible
to
ought
strength
It
presented.
to
If
psychological
when
or
categorise,
relating
individual
force
to
hesitant
is
This
acts.
the
of
assertion),
want.
psychological
Three,
point.
some
an
theory.
it
then
An
state.
in
or
possible
illocutionary
that
desire
these
of
(as
Searle
of
suggesting.
going
is
point
the
Chapter
is
we are
together, from
the
of
acts, terms
in
Differences
stronger
even
illocutionary
of
representations 4.
in
acts
or
number
illocutionary
to
relate
point
psychological
belief
express
a promise)
interesting there
expressed
a
a suggestion
directive. is
explored
The by
-6-
However, certain for of
status
more
Kindly
statuses
Searle
the
of
casts
speaker
distinction
the
way
and
the
hearer.
P is
boast
that
case,
on the
for
boasting
that
P may well
hand
form is
looking
1983).
quantify
and
in
Differences
performative
which
relate
the
point
is
important
"a
source
of
more
than
to
of
forms
part
no
Ockham,
the
their by
claim form
and
1985).
behind the
the
that
Smith
Searle's
Furthermore,
medieval
and
of
down
in its
Ockham's
philosopher
we try
and
I
who
first
are
such
deduce,
I
Austin
to
appear
to
referring
(for (1990)).
This regarded
acts
when
as
acts.
discourse.
speech
a
further
However
it
and
Van
(Searle
on Conversation
article Searle named
very
Searle
reply,
Austin.
theory
Razor,
for
speech
as:
importance.
Japan
verbs
such
the
a our
remorse
discourse.
a recent
another,
keep
to
of
the
even
in
-
expositive
final
to
the
Holdcroft
hold
I
player
particularly called
that
societies
of
one
boasting
of
certain
quite
other,
whether
by
to
referred
he
chess
a taxonomy
rest
P while
that...,
offensive
rest
the
to
act
see
use
the
category,
he plays
1986),
to
was
one
of
in
the
course
example:
pride
To
A lamentation
P.
the
P is
that
each
questionable
included
puzzlement"
this
of
to
that
of
Well, as
interests
lament.
assert
different
seen
is
it
utterance
speech
discussion
hide
to
and
regret
one
expressions
and
of
class
be
relations
certain
(Searle
of
referring
is
For
as:
Notions
be
should
much
in
such
to
that
by
said
might
is
contradict
very
but
Leech
lament
and
Veken
it
the
pride
It
case.
conventional.
statement
nice,
(see to
I
to
as boast
P is
lamenting
Title,
notes
der
because ability
of
Searle
that the
of:
more
harmless
difficult
the
is
utterance
expressing
to
as boasting,
seen
instance
P is
other
Master's
be
belong
validity
such
words
lamenting
the
the
hand
other
as
this
according
relates
By this
individuals
P and
take
relatively
it
the
between
P while
that
two
International
7.
on the
a superior,
structure,
form
under
Perhaps
However,
utterance
of
assert
regret
possible
the
pairs
to
other
expressing
boast
my knee.
nature.
doubt
to
orders
discourse
relationship
in
between
garden
from
topic,
point.
Differences
on the
hand
utterance
some
one-to-one
illocutionary
the
an
affect
issue
may
your
in
to
a relationship
considering
when
to
relative
may
inferior
contextual
individuals
of
an remove
relevance
effectively
6.
bears
circumstances,
example:
is
also
after
expressed
has
tended
William the
to of
argument
-7
"Do
not
multiply the
explain misguided words
the
as the
badly
in
this
thesis.
part
of
sentence-based der
(1985).
Veken
dependent
upon
of
certain the
form For
utterance.
The
force
You really
(2)
You must the
of
use
the
subtle
9.
Differences
theory
as a linguistic
of
really is
theory it
is
of
illocutionary
use
Searle
a speech
act
discourse,
the is
the
and
van
may
be
then
main
that
the
component
determined
are
Searle
of
by that
recognised
illocutionary
the
For
adverbs
force
may
of
strengthen
or
example:
adds
force
verb
oriented,
those but
to is
need not
it
is
For assert
be speech
always
it
for
would
on the by
merely
acts acts.
as speech
verbally
incorrect,
to
verbs
devices.
be performed
non
act
indicating
example
difficult
very
speech
must
But
utterance.
seem so important
not
perhaps
the
reconcile
that
acts
disapproval
signal
to
force
theory.
relativity
to
possible
hand does
other
to
possible
essentially
go.
impractical
highly
the
utterance.
can be,
on the
theory
affect
between
This,
and
constructs
the
final
that
another
go.
nuances
and those
devices.
must
how exactly
see
indicating
adverb
Searle's
since
in
content
example
of
(1)
in
that
force
propositional
force
the
it
to the
with
formalised idea
the
before
gone
in
throughout
show
"relate"
can
falls
validity.
in
surface
weaken
to
its
act
acts
illocutionary
Differences
illocutionary
speech
we allow
has
the loses
meaning
8.
If
what
that
notion
of
between thesis
to
is
argument
Searle's
attempt
fit
not
the
relationship
will
to
necessary
case
to
a speech
does
notions
I
as
that
discourse
the
this
central
areas,
idea
The
is
which
certain
in
strictly
two-dimensional
strictly
world
is
what
However
phenomena".
and
down
beyond
entities
speech difficult
be
that
Einstein's
other
hand
the
act
it
is
of
raising
an
eyebrow. 10.
institution
linguistic This
not. fact do
not
called
acts
fit that
performatives
Differences
of into
by
between
draw fall
formal
Austin
those
and
declaratives
acts
that
attention
to
into
theory.
an extra-linguistic
where
extra-
those
and
to
that
acts
Searle's
require
only
an
require
performance if
speech
that
acts
their
note-worthy
majority
comfortably
speech
those for
is
point the
that
of
11.
between
Differences
the
the
this
category
The
category
institution by
do
are
Searle.
corresponding
-8-
illocutionary
has a performative
verb
use and those
it
where
does
not. 12.
Differences
act.
To
the
performance
illustrate
essentially the
the this
of
style
of
point
Searle
fact
that
the
the
implies
is
is
announcing speaker
to
confiding
is
may be
carried
1.
taxonomy
of
The
Assertives.
speech
some
individuals
the
of to
only
implication
of
announcing
whereas the
of
purpose
known The
tones,
acts
audience.
consists
proposition.
Examples
Directives.
class
assertive
being
the
to
case, include
These
are
do something.
to
individuals.
of
to
Confiding
of
whereas
size
to
act
previously
hushed
attention
falls.
group
is
again
five
of
broad
1979).
(Searle
hearer
it
which
fact
the
maximise
something's
2.
in
drawing
speech
a select
some
done
the
known,
a few
to
is to
out
public
most it
that
Searle's categories
to
generally
make
at
or
not
is
between
This
confiding.
of into
category
distinction
the
Searle
delivery
of
notification
that
something
and
illocutionary
the
of
makes
point.
mode
determines
generally
performance
an announcement
a non-linguistic
extent
the
in
the
truth
by the
expressed insist.
and
to
speaker direct,
include
Examples
to
speaker the
of
predict
assert,
attempts
the
commits
the
get
order
and
speaker
to
entreat. 3.
Commissives. future
some promise 4.
the
1.4
Van der
Veken
the
commit,
to
Theory
in be
theory
(1985).
make
of
state
psychological acts
feelings.
own
These
henceforth
formal
express
include
kind
this
of
include
Examples
praise.
and
change
authority
Examples
sincerity
Declaratives.
shall
action.
condition;
speaker's
thank
The Formal
The
the
the
corresponding X
These in
apologize,
the
commit
threaten.
Expressives.
express
of
that
acts
are
course
and
specified
5.
These
the
the
I
declare
assuming
the
a
about X to speaker
be
Y, has
declaration.
Acts
speech
The notion
as Y,
bring
which e. g.
world,
known
Speech
of
acts
are
acts of
is
described
illocutionary
in force
Searle is
and
central
-9-
to
this
theory.
Part
the
of
its
literal
the
performance
an elementary in
utterance of
illocutionary
a given
context
illocutionary
an
is
sentence
act
that
constitutes
of
a
particular
force.
(Searle
and Van der
Furthermore
they
illocutionary
force:
1.
of
meaning
Veken
define
seven
Illocutionary
constituent
Point, type
a particular is
assertive
to
the of
distinguishes
components
point
or
Thus
act.
make a statement
illocutionary
the
p. 7).
op. cit.
the
category
of
the
illocutionary
of
purpose
of
an is
It
world.
that
point
each broad
purpose
the
about
of
essentially
speech
defined
act
above. 2.
degree
The
of
described
strength
for For
others.
certain
types
example
I
of
point
speech
insist
As
point.
illocutionary
the
above,
stronger
of
be
may
for
than
acts
is
stronger
than
of
achievement
is
I
suggest. 3.
Mode
The
of
distinguishes
which command
is
issued
mode
of
takes
place
under
oath
mode
of
basic
achievement
is
Propositional content type
to
place
pass, to
complex
anyway.
the
law
cit.
p. 16).
of
Also
it
testifying
act.
put
modus ponens"
not
on the
a
speech
For
act
example,
has
that
already
non-sensical
to
have
taken
apologize
"for
that
was to
possible
to
(Searle
extra-
propositional
itself.
be
the
transform
The
would
an action is
of
collection
something it
being
testifying, To summarise,
Conditions.
predict
out
in
that
is is
Similarly,
speech
content
it
and
command.
that
A
command.
that
of
constraints
that
authority,
act
a speech
similarly
carry
case
a
authority
achievement.
propositional to
the
an amorphous
are
makes no sense
promise
of
Content
by the
come
In
a more
conditions
the
asserting
to
additions
of
of
oath. mode
into
of
position
from
the
form
from
a request
achievement
is
mode
a position
the
of
under
linguistic
it
from
differs
testifying
4.
say
invocation
this the
The
achievement.
and van der
Veken
op.
-10-
5.
Preparatory certain
6.
force",
for
speaker
is
that
believes
speaker
to
The
for
them,
1.
sincerity
condition
next
of
part
if
the
the
actual
speaker
if
point
the the
the
utterance.
is
action
we
if
the
expressive
there
assertive
the
as
are
point
representing
world. has to
the
commissive
carrying
the
out
content
of
the
as
a base
for
primitive speech
base. primitive
is
at
hearer
some
in
point to
carry
content
propositional
has the
of
declarative by
a way specified
the
utterance. has
A statement the
a directive
the
get
the
the
of
the
expressive feelings
psychological
and
speaker.
illocutionary
primitive their
acts
for
is
idea
the
illocutionary
of
we can
use
acts
to
speech
group,
and to
components
of
each
extra
points, group
corresponding
by adding This
to
changed
expresses
speech acts
has
A statement
point.
states
five
act:
a stronger
that
propositional
by
content
these
speech
etc.
attached
has
has the
himself
attempting
world
it
a
is
conditions.
imploring
A statement
point.
if
have
the
specified
point
the
promise
maintains
of
commits
point.
out
to
his
conditions
A statement
by
speaker
Given
force
affairs
speaker
directive
The
complex
made
a proposition
point.
propositional
define
just
the
stage.
point
them
he has out
A statement
of
The declarative
5.
that
sincerity
or
theory
presents
specified
future
4.
the
e. g.
requesting.
formal
state
the
action
if
of
begging
point.
commissive
The
carry
the
with
points.
The
3.
to
ensure
accordance
sincerity
than
the
in
assertion
stronger
example
The assertive
2.
strength
have
acts
illocutionary
five
of
conditions
and feelings
the
he intends
degree
Certain
that
that
or
The
intentions
beliefs,
speaker's
is
performed
the
promise.
The sincerity
act
speech
that
presupposes
that
Conditions.
the
true,
fulfil
to
to
relate illocutionary
to
promising
example able
conditions
"peculiar
presuppositions
Sincerity
7.
Preparatory
Conditions.
behind
the
formal
force
for
each
build
more
illocutionary theory. category
Thus of
-11-
1.
The
2.
illocutionary
assertive
primitive
assertive
illocutionary
achievement
and no propositional
The
point
directive
illocutionary that
content
content
point
the
no
mode
of
conditions. force
the
with
a future
represents
has
with
illocutionary
directive
primitive
force
course
has
the
propositional of
action
the
of
hearer.
3.
The
primitive
illocutionary
commissive content
The
some future
declarative
that
The
these
primitive point the
build
illocutionary
the
has
the
the
mode
of
his
with
speaker.
force with
but
the
of
invokes
speaker
no
illocutionary
expressive
defined
to
point
content
to
power propositional
conditions.
expressive Having
action
the
propositional
illocutionary
declaration,
the
perform
the
has
propositional of
illocutionary
achievement
5.
course
force
with
the
declarative
primitive
content
point that
condition
represents 4.
illocutionary
commissive
special
complex
and Van der
Searle
acts,
by
acts
has
the
we can
use
conditions.
illocutionary
primitive
more
forces.
no other
with
force
on
the
five
such
operations identify
Veken
operations: 1.
The addition of
content
than
and Van der
its
past
is
that
Thus report
by
given
report
of
which
than
assert
only
conditions
content
or present.
propositional
conditions
content
propositional
more
The example
here
Veken
more propositional
because
have
others.
Some
conditions.
content
forces
conditions
Searle
to
propositional
illocutionary
the
has
of
relate entails
effectively
assert. 2.
The
addition
of
illocutionary than more
3.
forces
other
preparatory
necessary
for
has
made
entails
been
the
with
a reminder known
to
Thus
same point. than
conditions
the
that the
conditions
preparatory
more
hearer
because
assert
has
remind it
is
content
propositional before,
thus
remind
assert.
The addition add
have
forces
Some
conditions.
preparatory
sincerity
of
sincerity conditions
conditions. to
It
illocutionary
is
possible
to
forces
to
-12-
new illocutionary
create
P is
that P. 4.
point.
The
illocutionary
point
restricts
under
which
Thus
insist
The of
differs namely
sincerity from
in
illocutionary strength
degree
point
is
of
the
set
of
conditions
be
can in
assert
achieved.
its
or decreasing
of
point
mode
of
with
and in
achieved
the
degrees
and
of
forces
strength
their
which
Thus
expressed.
achievement
Some illocutionary
the
with
the
illocutionary
conditions. others
P. of
point
increasing the
of
that
achievement
the
from
regret
persistence.
of
strength
mode of
illocutionary
the
operations
of
lament
that
asserting
mode
illocutionary
achievement 5.
the
of
to
example,
expressing
P entails
that
restriction
For
P while
that
assert
lamenting
Thus
The
to
forces.
psychological is
assert
a
differ their
which
the
the
degree
of
state
is
form
stronger
of
suggest.
defined
Having category in
the
and to
order
then
go
the
show
speech
act
be
to
appear
will
be
explored
which
will
be
introduced
and
are
Van
and Our
list
is
in
1.3).
between
the
various
the
formal
theory
relationships
shortcomings
declaratives
of in
detail
it
Firstly,
assertives, These
exploring
nominate,
be act
resign,
bless,
repudiate,
abbreviate,
christen,
call.
and Van der with
Veken
declaratives
op.
cit.
p. 205).
is
that
there
is
no
so.
verbs.
disapprove,
confirm,
denounce,
consecrate,
speech
two
other
might
declare,
approve,
disclaim,
directives the
this
21 declarative contains:
that
significant
for why
but
Three,
assertives,
tableaux
no
identify
Chapter is
(for
tableaux
worthwhile
excommunicate,
problem
and
are
of
renounce,
(Searle
1.1,1.2
now.
Veken
endorse,
and
Veken
(figures
greater
der
appoint,
name
The
it
adjourn,
curse,
der
Van
and for
several
There
and
acts
tableaux
semantic
commissives).
categories Searle
three
only
Searle
acts,
those
semantic
entailment
which
there
upon
each
analysed.
verbs
There
produce directives
and
tableaux
complex
for
acts
may be performed
that
more
to
illocutionary
primitive
operations
produce
on
commissives
the
significant
-131.1 Figure The Semantic Tableau For (Searle and van der Veken op.
argue
confess
Assertives p. 219) cit.
lament
testify r
e
6 admit
...
assure
swear
...
complain
suggest
e= E=
Addition Addition Addition -i- = Increase ý' = Addition
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
E
accept \Z+
threaten
pledge
commit
= Increase Jý'= 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
beg
ask
request
require
demand
urge
insist
tell
direct warn
advise
suggest
8=
Addition = Addition Jý = Addition -}- = Increase
of of of of
Propositional Content Preparatory Conditions Mode of Achievement the Degree of Strength
Conditions
of
the
Illocutionary
Point
-16-
entailment in
verbs declare of
category
flat its
loses
this
extra
tableau
that
meaning,
category
dependent
another little
confines
strong
case
for
play
in
For
example,
acceptable
given
a
the
to
possible is
perhaps
or
even
make
say
Expressives
are and
relationships Searle's
category
When further most
of
from
the
act
speech
is
it
it
is
to
part
done
so
not
be
would
to
use
it
is There
Speech
Acts,
entailment
contained
within for
(see
exchanges
is
more the
Schiffrin
(1985)
defines
with
A:
(4)
B: Oh,
I rang
whether
usual
in
but
have been
at
have to
recorded you were
act
be a
of
Mum's.
have
verb
at
sentence structured
For
example
consisting
of
and support
for
telephone out.
one such we
one
a
discourse.
disputes
David's
assure
a speech
as a structure of
following
the
is
assure
an argument
exchanges
you earlier
I must
for
an argument
the
to
possible
because
relationships"
from
is
are
directly
built
are
example,
argue
flat
somewhat
"entailment
but
there
exist
category
For
participants
paired
Consider
(3)
is
these
entirely
between
position.
from
manner.
ritual
tableau
assert,
entails
exchange
a position,
is
Formal
a
below).
meaningful
actually
misconceived.
questionable
Although
argument,
is
"performatives".
that
this
some of
that
verb
in
verbs
However
be totally
it
out
whereas
acts
called
tableaux
the
argue;
any
of
carried
consecration
of
speech
better
The assertives
act
the
devoid
problems.
speech
all.
the
examining
to
name
very
discussed
It
as
or
bear
any
it
of
sort
group
have
be
other
1972).
assert.
appear
be
(to
acts
There
a round-about
original
of
one
are
specified,
declaratives
might
Goffman
example
one
renaming
many
many
consecrated,
in
similarly
of
and
example
acts
an assertion
Austin's
preserving
those of
formula.
the
speech
a separate
procedures
than
for
a case
for
is
ceremonial
other
as
linguistic
agreed
the
religion.
speech
something
to
Because
relationship
that
that
except
of
force.
institution
do not
They
indirect
some
form
surface
other
act
relationship
se declarations
per
declaratives
acts.
when to
nature
speech
entailment
institutionalised
of
of
according
a different
each
treating
a theory
suggests
an extra-linguistic
the
speech
indeed
on
within
other
the
them
to
entailment
results,
are
the
of
illocutionary
the
of
relationship
the
of
Most
them. on the
to
and
are
All
categories.
built
are
added
some
very
almost in
this plus
the
between
relationships
message:
-17-
(5)
A:
(6)
B: Mind
(7)
A:
(3),
In
Oh,
but
and A instead the
we accept also dialogue
is
such
an utterance
then
(3)
it
that
argument
after
be an
another
the
There produce
utterance,
It
question. to
utterance becomes
an
appears
to
be
verb
oriented
only
Hence there
the
model,
an implied of
brief
the
A's
If and
should
disputed
argument.
with
(7).
assertion.
why B
or
A's
Searle's
we take
force
by B.
disputed
in
crumbles
then
Had B not
should
B disputes
structure,
as an assertion
wrong
two.
initially
structure,
as to
model
illocutionary
being
to
a discourse
merely
the
seriously
essentially
Searle.
of
There
further
also
are
is
Permit
permit.
verb
in
is
(6)
is
(6),
claim
if
However
point.
stood
that
of
Searle's that
at
nothing
indicate
approach
is
and
in
have
would
something
an argument
sense.
an argument
no explanation
is
up her
view
makes
) which
some thought
backing
Schiffrin's
above
(3)
that
view
accept
There
(an argument?
after
of
and a half
then.
shopping
then
a good hour
in
been
we've
I went
by B,
position
then
you,
A makes an assertion
accepted
is
Oh.
by
described
the
consider
objections:
Searle
der
Van
and
act
speech Veken
as
follows: To
permission
grant the
perform
him
and Van der
(Searle is
and
thus
class,
placed
must
to
hearer
the
hearer
must
and be
which suggest.
also
capable content.
propositional is
made If
the
content
hearer,
I
clearer
suggest
this
something
have
propositional
the
do
Directives
outcome. the
to
at
in
have of
that
direct
does
examining P,
I
the
out
the
am merely
directives.
an attempt
to
about
the
not
entail
weaker stating
by
action
of
course
action
that
constraint
the
that
conditions
preparatory
for
worthwhile
neutral
a future
carrying
Thus by
the
of
content
propositional
represents
a
is
remaining
this
tableau
tableau
direct
verbs for
verb
is
It
the
group, while
act
semantic
absent.
permit
for
act
speech
primitive
locate
to
is
the
act
speech
speech
primitive
permit
of
class
a glance
yet that
attempt
the
upon
reveals
exercise
get
built
of
p. 202).
cit.
op.
directive
the
direct,
namely
directives
The
be
to
denegation
illocutionary
Veken
within
is
something
it.
do
to
do
to
someone
of
act
forbidding
Permit
to
specified permit, form
of
an
opinion
in
the
a point direct, as
to
-18-
how the is
hearer
permissible
Lecturer:
this
article.
is
the
lecturer
photocopier
by
Unknown
placed
the
upon
photocopies
to
to
P,
(according
to
the
is
is
a notice
of
department
not
by
an been "No
stating Then be
the
worthless. to
a suggestion form
not
of
has
that
a stronger is
copy
a copy
to
proved
entailed
permit
to
budget".
over
merely
merely
then
model)
P
whether
photocopier
obtains
-
P is
direct
use the
head
the
it
out
about
student
notice
carry
because
and
to
there
infelicitous
not
was
permission
do
further
until
suggestion
like
how the
to
as
no claims
following:
the
You might
a suggestion
article.
Thus
Consider
or not.
(8)
(8)
I am making
may proceed,
of
suggest
by
entailed
direct
either. There
insist
request,
for
consider
(9)
the
it
is
obviously that
doesn't.
In
Searle
and
tell an
and order
position therefore,
is
appealing
to
cause
use
but
the
response
is
I
one
us
with
lecturer so
given
the
the
to I
If
speech
is
issue
then
act
my
the
such act
categorisation
is
order approach is
forbid
as permit,
order
an
whole
verbs
a and
permission
to
that
that in
Being
grant
were
speech
between
tableau,
authority.
able
to
According
difference
semantic
of
therefore
and
tell.
the
illustrates
operators the
suggest
permission
between
deontic for
up
grant
example
because
Effectively
of
p. 201),
permit.
to
face.
lose
leaves
being
entails
this,
the
a position
entailments
problems
for
form
further
from
able
Indeed,
suspect.
is
entails
This
available
but
now,
infelicitous.
not
(op. cit
Veken
authority
infelicitous.
was
so that
issued
order
article?
knows
to
not
a stronger
which
being
without
on
der
order,
of
but
permit,
Van
permit,
entail
right
societies,
seen
merely
entail
not
not
namely
a lecture
not
student
certain
down
is
Insist
is
the
is
lecturer turned
this
I have
sorry,
photocopier
budget,
is
request
does
the
over
the
does
direct,
later.
come back
still
request
you photocopy
I'm
example,
from
following:
Could
Student:
could
however
the
example
up
pathways
tell,
and
Lecturer:
(10)
In
three
are
highly and
so
process.
Consider:
(11): In
(11),
You must
remove
your
1 am not
making
an order,
bag from I
the
fire
am merely
exit. pointing
out
an
-19-
if
obligation, have
done
my duty
order,
it
Veken
definition
is
(Searle (11),
I
it
is
my fault
am giving
different
forms
Firstly,
one.
I
feel
outcome
of
ignored
by
the
are
1.5
Indirect
(Searle
illocutionary don't
outlined
fit
indirect theory.
existence
of
them
if
Chapter acts,
problem
comfortably
into
Six
will
Speech
acts
speech is
surrounding
the
Indirect
it
but
I
to
act be be
shall
them
Act
is
The
speech
the
in
want
option
of
I
the
intended has
been
that
an
pointing "By
fire
the
in
argue In
this
make
which
shall
I
where
sense
saying:
out belief
my "
exit.
with
indirect
are
a viable devoted
this
and
used
speech theory
no
provides
acts and
are
we need
theory
of
the
subject
to some
introductory
has frequently
of
the
for
an adequate
how
language of
problems
model to
as
be
should the
whole
theory is
indirect and
of that
Veken
place
important
is
theory
adequate their
what
der
Van
of
type
acts
speech and
kind
one
another
perform
Searle
the
model
examine
Theory
to
an utterance
for
indicators
uttered
is
act
speech
indirect
of
explanation
force
which
because
above
the
assertive.
An indirect
illocutionary
act.
I
interest
operator
an attempted
1979).
but
act
into
when the
be
to
appear
should
in
all
Acts
includes
the
I
tell
from
after
an obligation
effectively bag
a
compressed
them
Three, an
your
remove
der
Van
and
something
no personal
a deontic
is
been
out
is
really
speaker to
contains
is
There
say
Chapter
In
(11)
as
also
illocutionary
in
model.
an
refusal.
me.
do
point
of
refusal,
give
first
is
second
Speech
acts
that
why
the
obligated
speech
they
the
not
him in
of
have
to
have
The
I
200).
ignore
interest, I
direct
p.
don't
yet
to
option
that
act
I
the
is
It
Searle
to
option
someone
act.
the
Searle
speech
when
but
obligation
you
to
and
such
expression
chooses
effectively
my speech
Searle,
he
tell
is
cit.
the
public
known,
obligation
by
the
op.
hearer
secondly,
in
that
Veken
my fault,
not
obligations.
him the
give
is
verb:
the
of
and
and,
refusal;
not
might
it
do
to
them
if
act
do something
to
does
your
according
speech
and Van der
In
two
this
of
of
you
it
then
removed,
telling
not
which
not
telling
a hearer
manner
not
by
also
To tell
is
bag
the
of used. speech
arguments
section.
been
attacked
because
of
its
-20-
alleged
inability
to
example
Levinson
(1983)
Chapter
his
analysis
section the
of he
salt?; utter
and
mean
asking
Chapter
seems
detail
more
in
lets
(13)
Y:
I have
ten
one
accordance
no mention
one
another
The
theory
theory
speech
of
theory acts
without
are
and
can
any
conventionality Harnish
(1979).
be
step
of
in
modal (Searle
acts
(examined
in
steps
speech
work
on the
as
attempts
to
explain
point
into are are out
I
to
several
discussed
that
it
is
shall
not
as
his
third
step. "bolt
a
theory
of
indirect
that
by
illocutionary perceived
points
detail exactly
as
illocution
underlying weak
certain acts
other
a
The
thesis.
certain
not
to
into
of
in
there
it
immediately the
in
build
assumption
why are
transliterated
which
acts
essentially
performance
indirectly
There
speech
conventionality
based
is
of
Searle's
usage.
response
as
on the
it
in
dubious
act
on
the
is
analysis
is
elicits
this
theory.
rests
act
the
that
Searle's
done
so-called
difficulty.
claim
acts
speech
is
and
speech
co-operating that
maintains
Searle's
of
count
They
whole
depth
more
Y which
relationship
the
thesis
the
case
Y is
that
This
framework
much
to
etc.,
theory.
language
presented
in
indirect
Y's
a proposal
third
on the
This
convention.
by
a question
and
following
of
we assume
indirect
acts
with
an exam.
rejection
thesis
illocutionary
may
tonight.
comprehension
indirect
of
rests
conventionality
that
for
act
needs
both
speech
the
speaker
analysis
indirect
permissible
an
and
respectable
study
the
of
an
the
reach
a request
issue
discussed for
of
movies
remaining
interpretation
is
this
be
on
secondly
the
he makes
but
Five
X makes
speech of
the
such,
an
illocution
another
utterance
will
the
acceptance,
within
discuss
acts
includes
Six):
Searle's of
the
section
the
and
with
is
Chapter
firstly
conversation.
on"
in
the
which
so that
an analysis
down
steps:
be
also
to
in mean
dubious, acts
go to
response,
must
arguments
Can you
utterance
also
that
speech
Chapter
X:
breaks
idea
The
(12)
Searle
above
for
Searle
acts,
a sentence and
somewhat
includes
46)
p.
the
content,
(see
verbs).
1979,
as
says
The
Six,
auxiliary
the
he
what
indirect
of
Of
this
propositional
a request
into
see
acts,
these
examine
speech
can.
modal
a question.
problem
indirect
on
interprets
a different
in
and I shall
speech
Two.
In
and
indirect
for
account
by
with
the
Bach
and
clear
what
-21-
is
by conventions.
meant
then
they
suggest is
It
to
customary
However,
of
is
point
of
certain
"please".
For
(14):
is
(14)
Are
might
Before its
indirect
such
the
that
making
is
(15)
not
give
an
postsentential
noise,
The
not.
that
use
please?
main
is
no
states
of
there
psychological
for
an explanation
Searle's
to
objection stated
the
the
connection that
speakers distribution
the
(assuming
of
demonstrate
it
about
Searle's
would
82-83,88-91)
A third They
the
call
it
is the
all,
and
presented
but
literal the
and cases section
Harnish
sets
that
like
1.7 (op. cit.
thesis:
certain
presents can
be
(Sadock pp.
a
arguments
theory, also
to
out within
His
by Bach and Harnish
standardization
have
not
incorporated
he
and
utterance
does Sadock
is
that
view
standardized
of
use
explain
the
inferential
in
to
phenomena.
an
discussed
thus
form.
complex,
Bach
alternate
the
indirect)
be
thesis
those
also
theory
at
linguistic
that
distinguish
and
indirect
direct
of
be more
which
and
ambiguity
range
are
meanings
to
is
thesis
standardized
the
fact
concern
not
seen
from
a
the
ambiguous,
is
two
at
thesis
ambiguity
ambiguity
the
way
that
the
additional
this
computed
that
The
is
look
to
useful
theory
act
speech
acts.
forward
acts.
that
be
speech puts
to
contribution
would
utterances
In
tests,
that
do A, please?
to
it
may have
direct.
theory
do
conventions
regarding
stop
provide
(1974)
utterances
192).
the
to
speech
be
such
is
indirect
to
Sadock
to
that
summarising
approaches
use
out
but
shortcomings
of
indicates
"please".
postsentential
and
p. 189).
you to
and us
declarative
certain
request.
cit.
thesis
allow
to
op.
you able
conventionality usage
usage,
example:
acceptable,
between
using
"please"
irregularities
I want
(15)*:
by
request
intending
and Harnish they
of
as:
and preverbial
speaker
(Bach
mean customs
forms.
Postsentential the
conventions
such
rules
interrogative
and
account
If
treated op.
cit.
as pp.
176-183).
(op.
cit.
p.
-22-
the
beliefs
mutual
conventions
intent working-out
process.
(Bach
and Harnish
op.
of
relation
to
the
work
because
of
the
difficulty
the
it
describe
in
inferential
theory is
It speech
largely
in
approaches,
rival theory
be
will
indirect
arises
misunderstanding is
repair
(16)
A:
(17)
B: Response
(18)
A:
(19)
B: Repair
Suppose say
Query
a
and thus
known
as
discussed
in
he
will
Harnish's
and
treatment
Many
that in
makes
the
speech form.
direct
of the
In
that
point an
a
utterance act.
speech
fourth
called
phenomenon
of
indirect
its
of
rival
criticisms
an
form
from
attack Their
simply
indirect
indirect
of
under
interpretation
an
position
as below:
I thought
you meant
statement
(16) is
take
to
it
by speech
mistake
of
answering
Chapter
Mother:
(21)
Russ:
(22)
Mother:
(23)
Russ: states
an indirect and
a act
request. in
theory, the
the
instead
question
an example
quotes
treated,
not (a
as a question
pre-sequence,
act,
speech the
indirect
Then,
if
his
indirect
interpreting
Schegloff is
is
X).
a question
as
pre-announcement
(20)
Schegloff
I
statement.
(Oh,
However
a
also
response.
(a request)
statement
Bach
Two.
or
the
arises, the
request.
isolation,
been
fact
the
interpretation
misunderstanding
directly
of
is
make
to
initial
direct
interpretation
might
and
Statement.
the
that
the
from
can be outlined
which
thesis,
in
in
thesis
socio-linguists.
Chapter
a discourse
describes
He
in
nor
it
has
by
where
direct
the
neither
this
examine
theory
act
however,
(1988)
in
inadequate
indirectly
interpreted
Schegloff
its
of
stem
I
when
particular
acts
the
acts.
discussed
speech
may be
1.8
speech
on
explaining
speech
through
standardization
later
in
because
that
acts
the
of
presented
of
speaker's
p. 192).
cit.
section
the going
without
importance
Because
infer
to
immediately,
usual
illocutionary
constitute
hearer
the
enable
indirect
act
that
a
act
speech
of
it
treating
where
B
response,
as
first
the
but
as what
is
these
will
be
Two):
Do you know who is
going
to
that
meeting?
Who? I don't
know.
Oh, probably that
Mrs.
according
McOwen. to
speech
act
theory
(20)
is
-23-
either
a request
or
misinterpreted
as
speech
theory
act
that
assumes himself was
that
the
discourse
because is
theory
is
is
notion in
him
provide
of
to
both the
own
is
the the
that
Russ
mother
meeting,
and he
that
so
information.
new
as
seems
right
On
his
some
with
from
support
wrong
a pre-announcement
its
forms
to
that
going
the
incorrect.
going
belief
McOwen to
is
is
because
predicted
appear
what
a mutual
mother
category
(20)
A: Do you know who's
(21)
B: Who?
(21a)
B: No,
(21b)*
B: Yes,
(20)
(21a),
some
sort
of
Consider
questionable.
on the
other
acts,
by
taken
the
indirect
was
B is
can
we
know
and
this
meeting?
and
is
To summarise
in
taken
Searle's
of
making
there
as
Theory
Speech
approach
analysis
is
problem
of
Acts
with
and problems
weak points
several
are
notion
Six.
Chapter
of
The
The
Two.
the
speech
certain
force.
new
to some
with
conversational
Chapter
in
up
its
of
any
with
appeal
when
much
detail
of along
known
greater
form
say (21b)
then
presented
hearer,
believe
socio-linguists,
acts
being
to
natural
a pre-announcement
some
loses
criticism
be perfectly
not
make
both
A Critique
1.
it
speaker
speech
Searle's
if
of
in
considered
would
states they
then
it
because
If
what
then hand
acceptable
psychological
that
who?
a question
information.
to
going
who?
was
be
should
1.6
two
it
following:
If
of
act
speech
Mrs.
his
expecting
the
with
dialogue
actual and
observations
there
know
Moreover,
the
then
thesis
standardization
match
not
Schegloff's
contrary
the
pre-announcement,
a
does
misinterpretation
in
but
a question,
theory: The
sentential in
incorrect;
it
does
of
not
of
between
relationship
it
does
for
the
speech
acts
adequately
to
expositives. a structural
of
possibility and units
be
to
seems
explain
not
relating
puzzlement"
allow
theory
Searle's
particular,
"source
Austin's Also
basis
of
discourse
structure. 2.
The
second
that
Searle
analysis
of
problem, has speech
is
which
imposed acts
a that
related uniform
is
to
the
structure
somewhat
artificial,
first, on
is his for
-24-
in
example,
Van der
and
assertive, more
formal
the Veken
op. cit) it
and yet
a
be
to
considered further
speech is
whereas
an
(Holdcroft
the
formal
an is be
could
speech
see
as
argument
an assertion
based
this
of
(Searle
acts
presented
that
appear
would
a sentence
discussion
of
an argument
discourse
of
unit
analysis
For
act.
a
Smith
and
1990). 3.
The hold
for
all
directives
it
this
The theory
of
indirect
Searle
6.
There
is
Searle's
theory.
if
but
the
of
theory,
utterance
is
it
is
an in
politeness the
there
into
indirect the
used
to
perform
says
very
little is
with
needs
much
chosen).
act. or
the
of
use
speech
of
act
add
a
philosophical
if
a level
the
at
marker
encoded
the
when abstract
an
marker
final
of
utterance act
speech why
to
away
stripped
appropriate
about
in
example,
with
start
an
which
Similarly
act.
at
The accept
we
For
be
(Currently, nothing
plausible
problem.
be
act,
even one,
not
act.
arrive
or
cognitive
the
with
abstraction"
that
we must
to
politeness
for
is
speech
of
utterance
well
a
must
utterance
level
the
must
speech
and
the
and
is
a speech
an utterance, act
sit
a philosophical
description,
speech
than
problem
underlying
generating
appeal
founded.
not
of
theory
also
then
decoded
interpreting
to
an aspect
perhaps
rather
abstraction"
Searle's
reveal
is
philosophical then
"levels
the
acts,
"levels is
This problem
cognitively
to
unexplored.
of
problem
computational
of
almost
remains a
possible
and
as a reason this
acts,
speech that
the
comprehensive
well
does
acts
into
declaratives,
about
perhaps
speech
politeness
mentions
theory
of
not
of
on it.
done
indirect
are
speech
theory
as a
misgivings
context
fit
between
be described
in
more work
is
entailments
entailment
tableau
semantic
it
not
directive
the
be made to
cannot
Austin's
theory.
formal
the
does
theory
example
Additionally,
can hardly
complete
the
it
interesting
hence
in
appear
tableau.
describe
5.
not
for
acts,
and indeed
semantic
4.
speech
does
permit
in
on entailment
reliance
a
theory
particular
-25-
7.
final
The is:
how
be
do
a
Sadock's
A
forward
put
will
be
examined
the
thesis.
that
meanings.
Thus,
all,
thesis
(1974)
the
by
systematically
claims
1.
is
the
this
support
of
linguistic
forms
which
range
to
support sentence
whimperative
-a
indirect
not
to
that
additional
is
attempts
on
view
have
required
Whimperatives
built
he the has
form
{subjunctive}
modal
you VP? }
{ negative For
thesis
grammatical
"force-ambiguity",
thesis:
theory
been Sadock
structure. act
a
distinct
six
detail
has
theory
act
speech
Sadock
problems
Acts
a sentence
analysing
examines
exhibit
ambiguity
direct.
and
of
use
they
should
greater
indirectly
used
standardized
literal
to
among
The
all? in
speech
ambiguity
standardly
or
linguistic
on
approach
The
are
He
based
based
but
phenomena.
the
Sadock
to
one,
politeness
at
Speech
to
approach
thesis.
sentences
at
Approach
previous
theory,
act
above
different
ambiguity
speech
the
with
theory
a linguistic
attempts the
by
do
to
act
Linguistic
somewhat
to
related
speech
of
throughout
1.7
to
relate
part
listed
part
considerations
things
other
in
problem,
example: (24)
Can you
(25)
Can't
Sadock
this
is
that
it
view
forms
sentence also
that form
whimperative
do
the
distribution
semantic
also
thought
of
to
in
imperatives
not
puts
words
forward here.
thesis such
for their
evidence
that
indirect
usage,
as
in
(again
interrogatives
as
act
imperatives.
underlie
look
three
types
of he
Firstly, in
"please"
the
underlying
structure
to
necessary
as
ambiguity
you?
the
Sadock
usage).
support
him with
is
behave
they
indirect
now?
you take
argues
support
leave
To these and their to
evidence examines
imperatives
the and
whimperatives.
(26)
Please
(27)
Would
There
appears
action
verbs
shut
you please to
in
the
door. shut
the
be a correspondence
imperatives
door. in
the
and whimperatives.
use of This
please
with
correspondence
-26-
also
(28)
Shut
(29)
Would
Second,
is
when "please"
occurs
Sadock
(please)
door,
the
post-sententially.
please. door,
the
shut
you
added
please.
"fractured"
considers
forms
(subjunctive)
VP modal
to
and attempts that
states
show that
(Sadock
respects
op.
are
behave
When will
like
(30b)*
Wash the
(31a)
When will
(31b)*
Wash the
(32a)
Tell
me, when will
(32b)*
Tell
me, wash the
you wash the car,
not in
questions
will
or don't
car,
or don't
you,
you wash the
He
questions. least
at
four
you know?
will
you?
you wash the car
will
you wash the
you know?
by any chance?
car,
by any chance,
car,
When will
but
requests
112).
cit.
(30a)
(33)
)
they
do not
they
whimperatives:
(please)
you
{negative
of
car?
you? and when will
car,
do
you
the
dishes? The
evidence may be
which
here
conjoined
to
fractured
with an
presented
here.
questions
if
(Bach
Harnish
(34)
that
Bach
the
Certain
in
When
be
some
you
the
wash
The
and
car
the
{I
co-occur
expressions
how
know
to
want )
but
imperatives
with
you
)
quickly. certain
to
question
careful
answer.
Thirdly,
see
conjoined
to
relates
conjoined however
be
may
way
so
(1979)
Harnish
and
expression
180).
cit.
will
of
cannot
non-questions
non-question op.
types
certain
interrogatives
whimperatives.
objection
and
is
not
interrogatives:
(35a)
Wash the
(35b)* Against that
When will
the
out
interrogatives
someone.
you wash the
can function
that
a verbal
response
whereas
imperatives
only
also
with.
seems
The evidence somewhat
dubious
evidence
This or
not
a verbal
regarding
the
is
suggest
fractured
and may be explained
to
whimperatives with
complied
are
response
1975)
responses
because
they
to
(Green
match
whimperatives
whether require
is
interrogatives.
imperatives.
and not
require
complied
there
like
to
responstýs
someone?
car,
argument,
whimperative
whimperatives
points
car,
if
they
are
not
whimperative away
with
an
-27-
adequate
In
explanation
you wash the
car
and mow the
(37)
When will
you wash the
car
and I'll
the
by
may
Sadock than
rather
Impositives
answered
positively (in
refusing
to
not
very
The other anymore,
form
in?
has
Sadock
1.8
presented
forward
Bach
detail. to
attempts types
To Speech
to
to
evidence
be
may
for
a reason
this
(1979) set
be
to
this
he?. approach,
explained.
Theory
has
theory is
act
in
been
put in
examining
worth
a speech
involved
inferences
shoot.
doesn't
with
act
out
anyone
discovered
Columbus
spinach
this
and
Does
as:
Move and I'll
as:
Act
speech
schema
which four
deciphering
act:
and direct
ii)
literal
and indirect
iii)
non-literal
and direct
iv)
non-literal
and indirect
involve
speech
acts
speech
acts
speech
speech
factors:
three
acts acts context
content,
and
intentions.
The
when
are
Unfortunately
as:
needs
literal
The speech
that
we VP?
impositives
with
such
likes
i)
communicative
1)
that
Harnish
the
speech
inferences
The
and
explain of
data
Harnish
Bach
connectives
impositives
be problems
to
approach
and
here
His
be refused
such
John
Approach
inferential by
more
category,
some
presented of
that
that
such
appear
The Inferential
The
basic
there
fact
queclaratives
and Tag-questions:
Although
the
cut.
are
another
is
animosity).
pseudo-imperatives,
Requestions
across
Why don't
of:
here
must
any
clear
use
or questions.
on the
avoid
categories
form
the
theory
by "OK" but
order
is
distinction
take
based
evidence for
rules
whimperatives is
dishes?
structure.
Sadock's
view
lawn?
forward
The
with
linguistic
Impositives
and not this
doesn't.
example:
do the
carries
do
to
more
VP-ing?
support
it
(37)
hidden
-
suggestions
America
in
have
some
How about
effectively
when
whereas
VP
For
connectives.
When will
(36),
or:
use of
(36)
connective
2.
the
of
act
schema is
Linguistic speaker
Speaker
based
Presumption and (S)
hearer utters
upon (LP).
share
three This
a common
an expression
presumptions: is
the
mutual
language, (e)
and
Hearer(H)
belief that can
-28-
identify e in
the
information.
probably
could
The
that
not
some
with
they
speak helps
mutual
in
identify
any
that
would
is
e in
they
not
the
L he
and
it
assumption
is
do not
do believe
and
doing
have
is
so
beliefs
that
speakers
this
illocutionary
the
of
appropriate
belief
This
People they
meaning
language.
the
some
intentions
overt
the
people
(CP).
but
acts,
to
this
intention.
recognizable
them
H knows
using,
S utters
speaker
with
that
Presumption
illocutionary
about
are
communicate
Communicative whenever
and
Without
language
the
share
(L)
H knows
that
given
saying,
language
common
background
2)
S is
what
act
fact
that
from
some
utterance. 3)
The
Presumption
belief
S is
then Using
these
Bach
and
their
by
ambiguous
intended
by
determine
S.
inference
take
S is
b) c)
the
interpretations
form
the
which
of
that
the
suggest
is
(MCBs).
Hence
the
linguistic
first
the
of
to
meanings meanings
was
is
to
hearer by
L,
given
words,
those
meant
in
amount
those
S
that
e means
other
of
some
able
using
certain
steps
of
H's
of:
e.
uttering
a) e means
and
Harnish
one
only
determine
to
beliefs
contextual
S meant
that
In
e.
made
large
just
than by
S meant
what
the
of
describe
infer
that
something
more
S has
H may
because
H needs
H has
of
is
this
to
act
an utterance.
that
presumption,
that
a speech
from
act
mutual literally
attempts
which
realises
However,
and
Bach
which
all,
the
speaking
developed
illocutionary
linguistic
e and
then
p. 21)
is
This
be
could
Harnish
and
cit.
of
determine
operative,
mutual
first
language,
to
e is
that
an
By the
in
presumption
infer
language.
shared
ambiguity
op.
H,
something
meant
Harnish
may
e.
utterance
be
assumptions,
hearer
The
eS
uttering literally.
hearer
how the
in
speaking
(Bach
schema
if
that
(PL).
Literalness
of
in
and
...
by e,
S means
... The supposition
or
that
L.
S means
by e.
S means
by e is
contextually
less
appropriate. S means From the that
S is
propositional
fact
... that
saying
by e. H infers that
content.
U(P),
that where
S means U is
...
by e,
some utterance
H can determine and P is
its
-29-
Given has
to
i. e.
S means P with
determine
Si:
S is
S2:
S means
S3:
S is
S4:
S, if
S5:
S could
S6:
S is
Bach direct The
Find
be
proposed indirect
F-ing
literally,
is
that
that
directly,
and
F.
To summarise:
extend
indirect
the
schema
acts
and
literal
acts
S could
not
P
connected
in
F-ing
that
Find-ing
that
by
and
Bach
P,
P.
P.
is
non-literal indirect
non-literal firstly,
are:
F-ing
that
way
identifiable
such
that
in
gives
some
in
P.
is
that
idea
of
more
a is
There
the
under
F-ing
identifying
described
acts.
there
a
for
Harnish
include
to
be merely
This
This
acts.
that
P.
indirect
H that
F-ing
P.
then
speech
force
now
U(P)
be F-ing
to
circumstances also
that
speaking
that
literally
H
by e.
saying
by
realisation
U(P),
e.
...
for
steps
some
uttering
that
saying
speaking
some illocutionary
literal
acts,
S is
that
S is
whether
Harnish
and
inferred
H has
that
S could
P, the
schema
both
direct
detail
in
and Chapter
Three.
The
speech
psychological if
it
it
is
act
plausibility
direct
and if
as an indirect
alternate
is
the
speaking
Communicative
categories:
acts
of
see
are
an
propose distinguish
speech Searle's
as
acts
into
subdivided
directives,
constatives,
to
Conventional
acts.
same class
speech
also they
which
speech
the
interpret
on to
going
Bach and Harnish in
upon
an utterance
then
only
not,
and conventional
declaratives.
dependent
examining
taxonomy
act
broadly
are
it
is
above
first
of
utterance.
speech
communicative acts
schema outlined
four and
commissives
acknowledgements. The speech H
a
interprets
makes.
They
model
how
of
speech
admit
even acts
strategy:
that
details
indirect
as
have
if
the
are
of
speech
inferences
speech
act
on
for
how
been
only
interpreted of
the
however,
rests
fine
the
reconstruction"
they the
argument
that
suggest
of
However bones
their
though
even
a "rational
be
of
an utterance
out.
exact
least
bare
schema,
act
worked
thrust
main
act
sketchily is
it
may the
that schema
example
schema
then
the
is
only
not at
hearer the
-30-
That
we cannot to
attests
their
non-existence (Bach Furthermore
We
state:
suggest
that
speech particularly
act
Can you the
jump
can
deals
their
infer
indirect
S's
having
without implication salt,
by
they circuited
to
having
to
is
through
go
not
in to
principle force. that uttering
In in
other this
U is
Another
how the
the
the
and intent
leads
Can you
to the
pass (see
to
attempt
act
the this
solve
intent
steps.
They
illocutionary
some
context,
make
the
then
is
mutual
with
its
the
without it
that
out
by
S's
illocutionary
a
mutual
conversational determined
literally
a mutual
only
standardized.
the
belief
is
It
achieved
violate
context,
the
standardization
become
would
is
there
that
point
conventions.
utterance
short-
immediately,
illocutions
it
be
enable
illocutionary
of
such
state
which
may
conventions
indirect
usual
thesis,
schema
They
standardization
particular
then,
ambiguous
illocutionary
that
words,
that
a problem
turn
as:
the
primary
conventionality
speech
a notion
that
suggest
indirect in
such
Harnish
meaning.
speaker's
use
state
that
to
require
constant
belief
all,
formulate
to
They
to
of
constitute
through
as
as
thesis.
multiplying
the
such
schema
poses
the
This,
forms
and
the
intent
systematically
standardization
infer
does
that
indirect
the
short-circuited,
identify
it.
for
Bach
is
literal
the H can
1.7).
points
possible
schema
the
in
that
hearer
if
as
without
beliefs
admit
into
i. e.
short-circuited,
they
regarded
claim
to
are
they
act,
This,
search
first
is
speech
acts.
out
rule
of
They
forms
standard
of
be
look
They
type
fit
to
seem
of
use
indirect
work.
part
standard
the
apply
Searle's
that
intent, to
thesis
ambiguity
this
that must
problem
to
the
down
because,
having
of
... to
rationalise
do not
that
inference
of
speech
schema,
instead
For
directly
indirect
with
that
to
in
absent
involve
These salt?
situation
rules
attempt
acts
with
schema
usual
hearer
for
the
pass
some is
that
a way
schema.
their
situations.
make
concerned
speech
that
of
also
in
interpersonal
recognised
and types
acts
to
not
simplicity.
every
mutually
Harnish
and
subtlety,
1979, p. 93)
they
persons
ingredients
their
all
and
blatant
Harnish
involve(s)
Bach
complexity or
and
identify
readily
between
S and intent
H in
indirect.
aspect
of
speech
act
theory
addressed
by
Bach
and
-31-
Harnish
the
raises
generated;
p. 238,
1.
propose
a speech
production
op. cit.
) which
consists
of
Speaker the
descriptions
act
they
and
Harnish
how speech
of
question
S has a variety and direction
nature
beliefs
of
basic
and
steps:
and desires
concerning
discourse,
the
of
(Bach
model
nine
are
beliefs
H's
etc. 2.
S forms
3.
S attempts
a series to
4.
The utility
5.
A particular of
8.
The
most
likely
9.
Expression
ei
the
describe
bare
the
1.9
of
into
the
from
the
of
onto
indicates
an
for
problems to
directive of
money
an
speech
is
speech
fulfilling
act
theory
because
view
S's
an to
attempt
and
however
be done to
to
has
generating
acts,
speech
its
of in
used
much still
Speech Act
is
not
as
the flesh
add
at
would month).
its
features
certain way types.
speech
happen
of
For
example
act,
whereas
indirect in
the
which
are
to
a hint:
map mood
imperative
mood
acts
speech when
of
the
indicative
the
the
surface
pose form
indicates
interpretation case
on
possible
the
acts
attacked
based
utterances
indirect
particularly the
is
it
make
been
many
arisen
speech
also
it
that
Obviously,
and
has
because
firstly
act
indirect
theory
and
have
theory
act
integrating act
speech
however
critics
speech
by
caused
are
Theory
without
assumption,
assertive
this
of
a systematic
assertive
(this
of
selected.
inference
angles:
there
this
is
to
approach
of
a directive.
to
formed.
are
expression. ei
point
However
in
PI
of
uttered.
levelled
that
utterances
points
is
problems
identifiable
points
Theory
different
assumption
each
with
formed.
likelihood
expression
of
theory.
two
predict
there
criticisms
because
these
presented.
Some Criticisms
the
is
PI
the
admit
Act
intent
and indirect
outline
Speech
fulfilling
of
assessed.
to
direct freely
is
expressions
methods
interpreting
to
consequences
linguistic
cognitive
the
authors
intent
and Harnish
Bach
from
each
intent
pragmatic
appeal
the
pragmatic
attempts
The
predict
of
6. A variety S
intents.
pragmatic
intents.
various
7.
of
I'm
very
a short
-32-
it
If in
impossible
proves
a systematic
i. e.
pragmatics, linguistic
form
out
way
of
the
reasons
all,
it
does
this
problem
might
why
indirection
is
someone
forces
but
speech of
forces
taxonomy
problem is
speech
notion
what
a speech
act
Levinson
suggests
speech
operation of
on of
speaker i)
sets
of
a
A
state S is An
of
H is
at
way After ways
of
number
of
recognise
when
we
have
idea
act
map out
lead
would
to
us
or
to
of
a literal
act
could
way
mentioned
speech to
mapping
another
abstraction"
trying
ought literal
of
is
This
the
notion
a context
describing
modify
can
be
detailed
a
either our
reject views
of
force
could
be
as
an
be viewed be
must
knowledge
beliefs,
in
understood
and so
Thus he states: p is
in
which
belief
that not
affairs
that
p is
from
a function
S is
speaker
is
perhaps
on the
which
in
and that
context
S
not
a to
committed
S is
context p to
committed
... the
p. from
a function
committed
to
bringing
described
in
into
p,
a
context
about
the
one in
which
context
in
about
the
in
which
so committed. order H
which state
One
takes.
sentences
of
a speech
that
promise
that
context.
"levels
the
that
true
where
iii)
idea
the
justified ii)
to
that
altogether
that
assertion
into
in
This
propositions
where
from
is.
and hearer.
An
it
infinite
impossible
no point
acts
on a context
terms
away
different
an
suggests
level
actually
the
with
pure
a systematic
form
the
are
to
desirable.
in
what
instead
types.
act
the
replaced
there
of
no
is
there
of
and
describe
to
sentences
there
of
used
function
to
resort
very
describe
to
assumption
onto
then
specified
be
be
to
seem
concentrate
the
If
earlier.
not
example,
fundamental
specifying
entirely
becomes
for
should
act
theory
act
form
indirectly.
(1983) the
to
if
it
then
speaking
reject
necessary
is
because
Levinson
becomes
be possible
to
ways,
linguistic
speech
this
and
ought
possible
to
lifting
indirect,
being
it
then
way,
relate
to
of so
that is
not
affairs
p is
from
a function
required described
by by
a
S to
bring
p,
into
one
required.
(Levinson
1983, p277)
Levinson's
proposals
have been extended
by Gazdar
(1981).
If
-33-
we
the
reject
surface
forms
Levinson
has is
there
described
to
a set
assertive.
This
theory
that
use
language
is
however,
of
propositions
describing
of
propositions
can
to
rules
a certain
map the form
surface beliefs
of
speech
of
mapping incorporating Certain
indicates linguistic
speech
and
example,
an
indicator
making way. way,
such
as
a request, to it
could
hearer this
the possibility
discourse
equates
roughly
as
of
option in attack structure. to
the
of
accepted
of
a very
indirect
Chapter
is
certain a
declining
when
obligatory in
in
a very
is
omitted
because hint the
request
some
indirect
the
thus
is
it
because
as is
aim so
utterance,
the
act.
speech
strategy, the
given
underlying
linguistically
instead,
an assertive
often
the
interpreting
into
ambiguity
and
theory.
of
requests
politeness into
way
that
up the
a request
hearer
implicitly
on
many
be marked
marker
using
level
some
when
the
signal
indication
make
to
with
that
case
the
on
please,
which
making
hold
systematically
an
politeness, must
the
whereas
A second of
a hint,
used
those
we have
to
of
in
actual
reflect
of
the
that
components
hand,
by
be
indication
thus
force
introduce
an
of
might
presence
as
sets
concerned
part
is
these
an
then
example:
it
terms
systematic
to
seem for
is
a as
so much
a level
other
in
There
pragmatic
onto
able
be
should
not
please
and
will
are
other
a request, On the
be
Perhaps
perhaps of
that
ways
in
with
that
rules,
do
If
concept
pragmatic
the
act
etc.
features
forces,
force
For
abstract
the
language.
conjunction
acts
features
request.
propositions
an
form
indirect
structures
in
theory
onto
illocutionary
knowledge
the
function
surface
a
a speech
theory act
illocutionary
certain
its
by
a powerful
that
to
representing
context
recognise
between
gap
those them.
from
to
going
how
embody
use
as
(above)
or
that
large
linguistic
constrained
beginnings idea
act
set
how we actually
perhaps
certain
with
etc.
the
speech
Although
a function
as
a very
beliefs, used,
that
utterances
how we are
appeal
be
in
an assertive
and
between
gap
representations
goes
the
leaves
a wide
representations.
what
idea
no
us
is
there
underlying
from
of
gives
we can
to
as
representation
context
of
derived
are
then
underlying
rationale
representations The
the
and
no
force
of
notion
that the
giving (I
explore
Six).
speech If
a sentence
act
theory
we accept
the
(and
is
it
comes
through
the
notion
that
a speech
not
clear
that
this
study act is
or
-34-
be
should
the
discourse
has
integrate
speech
There
in
structure, are
some
speech
act
theory.
into
problem discourse
of
issue
This
discourse
that
the
discourse
of
does
not
that
are
be
will
has
that
be prepared
we must
a theory
idea
the
accept
then
structure,
case
theories
to
we are
who advocate
which
there
of
theory
act
those
are
form
some
if
then
case),
to
structure. identifiable
no
but
arise,
equally,
incompatible further
explored
with
in
Chapter
Two. Levinson
also by
superseded is
and
that
the
great
a "more
in
that
suggests
speech
complex,
a sense
multi-faceted I
what
am setting
of
the
factors
the
problems
of
speech
as
an
complexity
theory
act
pragmatic do,
to
out
approach",
by
determine
that
be
to
may come
recognising
a given
speech
act. One of originated difficult has
to been
of
questions
is
or
problems there the
up
several is
there from
the
speech
act
traditional
At
the
are
of
speech
whether
philosophers some
how we derive
the
for
some
approach problems
in
general
is and
some to
have
is
leaky
philosophical
to
inference".
of
avoid
the
that issue
theory
just
completely that
can't
has
speech
we
of
how
wish
to
existence
of
level.
The
example)
is
too
"background
of
the
avoids at
speech
which
do
a
answered.
correct
totally level
and
into
be
terms
"we
whether
science
the
It
still
1978)
act
(for
cognitive
argue
of
cognitive
Searle
act
are
question
the
of
form
the
presuppose
at
there
is
are
speech
cognitive to
there
own
questions
there
require
secondly
their
incorporated
be
the
and
(Holdcroft
can
it
including
notions
acts,
is
sentences,
sets
level
it
why
exactly
what
However
questions
these
represented,
acts
appropriate
these
"some
to
that of
of
these
more
speech
acts.
problem and
the
as
speech
of
disciplines
it
although
intelligence
inexpressible
are
that
disciplines
of
philosophical
representations
and of
problem
up
of
explains
knowledge"
and
becomes
philosophical it
vague,
theory
it
utterances
Both
set
new problems the
types
these
indirect of
certain
of
which
utterance
formulate
perform.
prop
how
theory
Firstly,
acts
acts
general
thrown
we
be.
problem
artificial
taxonomies
speech of
act
clear
should
problem
act
Each
concerning are
more
language. speech
to
wider
science,
less
the
a much
the
answer
values
cognitive
about
theory
by
adopted
psychology
asked,
truth
assign
linguistics,
to
attempt
is
theory
act
it" in
stand
as
some
order up to
to a
-35-
rigorous
analysis.
between
the
Sadock
of
meaning
(1974)
linguistic
Linguistics
has
speech
act
in
speech
1.10
Computational
are
but
success, new insights
information
in
interested
information
than
(38)
Patron:
(39)
Clerk:
To explain i)
this
are
are
They
perceived
of
and provide
(1983),
Allen
of
the
of
members and one the
often
Allen
public
and he
that
phenomenon
clerk
also
program. the
of
see
provided
more
leave?
train
Montreal
assumptions: agents
to
capable
capable
their
goals.
achieve
capable
inferring
of the
observing
who are
of
agent
the
to
detecting
forming
of
other
of
plans
some action.
perform
in
obstacles
another
plan.
basis,
information
degrees
varying
10.
plans
often
are
agent's this
Intelligence
up new problems
station
rational
from
agents
On
throw
made three
and executing
iii)
with
between
the
gate
Allen
They
suggests
p107).
People
ii)
This
our
for.
When does
1983,
(Allen
whether
Artificial
description
that
was asked
3.15
in
was that
exchanges
was
see
all
theory.
act
on Toronto
clerks
to
to
complex.
very
programs
a more detailed of
be
has been used
program
a corpus
collected
Added
structure. data
highest
the
at
Speech Acts
of
speech
are
indeed
and
plausible.
to
relationship
theory
verbs
empirical
AI has managed to
for
act
the
of
act
grammatical
Processing
into
(1987)
Allen
speech
may have
influential
One
and
problem
psychologically
theory
Language
Natural
of
Models
act
the
speech
examine
theory
act
Speech
was
to
models
that
that
terms
have
we
words
argued
level
this
of
has
the
because it
that
to
was able
clerk
inferred
he
with
plan
of
the
be useful
might
reply
add the
to
the the
additional
number
gate
and
patron to
his
answer. In
must
system type which sets
to
order
be able
consists formulas
to
to
of
(1983,
a name, in
the
play
represent
by Allen
represented
of
be able
the
plans p. 117)
a set. of
following
role
of and takes
parameters
classes:
the
clerk,
a computer The
actions. the
form
and
(possibly
of
action schema null)
-36-
i)
Preconditions action's
ii)
execution
Body -a
to
become
that the
of
specification
be true
should
if
the
succeed.
conditions
-
successful iii)
is
execution
Effects
that
- conditions
the
after
action.
the
of
true
action
at
detailed
a more
level. In
this
type.
way,
The
a speech
action
informing
of
INFORM(Speaker,
body:
an
action
P)
P)
believe(Hearer,
Mutually
as
P)
Know(Hearer,
Know(Hearer,
effect:
represented
is:
Hearer,
precondition:
may be
type
act
Speaker(Want,
Speaker(Know, Hearer, P)))
A plan
initial
an target
the
is
being
execute
in
order
(40)
representation to
utterance
is
does
by using
this into
goals At the out
what
then
it
to
trying
was
expansions
the
execution.
are
chaining
(of
to off
someone
a
a
it
to
into
a
expand
the
to
to
achieve
that
the
plan.
It
top
to
attempt in
called
"alternatives".
method
is
level
work
making Then
to
used when
act
"expectations".
called
used
semantic
speech Given
mood. fit
and
patron).
(planning
into
are
alternatives
the
possible
are
of
ways
as
assign
expansions
a
Additionally
meet
utterance
rules
a
plans
which
BOARD plan
to
as
construct
the
plans
as sentence
rules
out state.
to
mapping
state
can
about
such
now attempts
inference
has been
its
attempts
construction
identified to
the
such
backing
plan
goal
(planning
parses
These
plan
meet
Having obstacles
all
speaker
and
expectations plausible
of
plan
these
utterance, forward
Windsor?
a goal
working
reason
an utterance
to
actions
program
the
the
system:
with
sub-goals.
the
the
MEET plan
a request
same time
at
recognise
criteria
using
arrive
to
and
it
by
able
presented
first
target
be
the
system
this
to
and
The train
the
both
in
So,
then,
to
plans
a train)
at,
to
of
we see
able
two
catch
If
state.
be
and
are
ordering
to
goals
There
types
aimed
needs
a partial
a goal
achieve
achieving
the
onto
to
system
train).
as
action
of must
represented
state
that
plan it
be
can
this
make happens
the a the a
identified. the
plan, The
reply
the
system
takes
into
now
detects
consideration
any any
-37-
perceived
obstacles.
Speech
act
together
marrying
some
framework. acts
informative".
is
is
interpreting
(41)
to
is
be
discussed
in
speech
act
his
is
domain
left. to
how
see than
to
a
understand (probably
becomes
clear
why
The
problems
however.
The
appropriate this
whether
(1985)
Litman
next
and
Knowledge
assembly
which
goes
acts
speech
a
a theory
with
been
and
of
user acts
developed
will
chapter.
KAMP -
speech
could
approach
has
The
approach
plans
generation
the
domain
has
modifying
structure
the
are
plan
made
by
and
Modalities
the
system in
modelled
complex
of
repair is
the
Appelt
a
novice
system
are
informing.
a hierarchical of
representation concentrated
particular
based
is?
question it
plan-based
system
devices.
and
its
and
the
at
called
KAMP is
set
"be
indirect
rather
the Then
clear
Discourse
assistance.
of
plan of
an attempt
asking
domain.
in
attempt
is
no means
detail
electro-mechanical
work
the
difficult
not
we make
the
more
KAMP's
Allen
maxim
box
information
without
integrating
structure.
requesting
speech
the
uses
on your
is
developing
discourse
He
it for
determine by
of
seeking
the
corner
when
not
an unlimited
towards
Planner.
of
that
telephone
telephone).
is
introducing,
for
(1985).
mind
the
use
to
it
to
extended
An
see
to
indirectly.
used
way
in
had
approach
and
the
round
a request
interpreted
heuristics
some
some
nearest
as
wanted
specific
the
approach
speaker
Allen's
system
explain
based
perceived In
he
just
a plan
question.
be
its
Yes,
we take
that
to
to
goes
pragmatic
applied
illuminating
impossible
not
used
when
towards
it
Gricean
a
recognition
a coherent
because
approach
of
Yes.
(42b)
the
is
Do you know where
(42a)*
what
plan
form
to
within
form
the
Consider
acts.
(41)
(41)
be
can
(41)
it
this
acts
length
some
Also
approach
If
go
of
takes
system
alternatives
to
speech
notion
to
and appeal
integrate
The
appears
speech
a certain
to
way
Allen's
expectations
is
There
plan.
in
recognition
concerned beliefs utterance.
planning
plans,
called
on inferring with and
the
that
system a
procedural
plans
from
question
of
network.
how holding
results
in
Linguistic
actions
form
an
Whereas Appelt's
utterances,
intentions
UNIVERSITY UBRARY LEEDS
a non-linear
uses
a
particular
agent
making
a hierarchy
of
a four
-38-
levels: i)
Illocutionary
ii)
Surface
speech
iii)
Concept
activation
iv)
Utterance
linguistic
The starting
goal.
pump
from to
attached
the
such
Do(John, the
John
this
tool,
from
the
(and
further
of
the finds
each
speech
acts of
is
that do
only
possibly
of
it
and
is,
unifies
the
an
to
PL)
has
criticism
that
and
know
is
he
knows
anything
about
John
about
which
level
tool The
using
the after
and
KAMP
completed, the
with grammar,
representation
of
surface is
which
a
speech
surface
final
the
produces
schema
pump
act).
1977)
been
what
discovering
what
a teleological
grammatical
John
the
associated
with
sub-goal
remove
lowest
be
should
ostensive
the
of
to
(Sacerdoti
critics
grammatical
in
by
be
conclusion
know
not
is
series
not
examines
inform
to
description it
does
a request
down
and
functional
schematic
need
generated
expansion
and
we need
where
are
does
John
we also
John
the
would
the
(this
Rob then
top
pump
(Rob)
request
remove(Pu,
the remove
a
a
action
sub-goal
required,
to
Then
into
However this
to
goal
computer
expanded
out
the
but
Filling
acts.
carry
the
the
the
level
(John).
platform.
plan-generation
cycle
sort
the
not
subgoals
cycle
apprentice
to
platform
use
the
that
be
currently
expanded
with
comes
might
top
planner
up
acts
that
is
as
is
ending
goal
the
fact
discovers
so
So
the
tool and
ASK.
the
within
and
level
top
This
expanding
a certain
about
to
by
at
downwards
knowing
PL))
required
arrived
COMMAND and
illocutionary
as
from
pump
is
tool
that
place
remove(Pu,
remove
the
platform.
preconditions same
REQUEST.
POINT.
and
acts
the
platform,
platform).
the
DESCRIBE
expanded
above
-attached(pump,
in
as ASSERT,
such -
example
the
INFORM and
as
illocutionary
but
For
acts
are
the
acts,
level
such
acts.
levels
with
utterance
acts
utterance.
Allen's to
speech
it,
to
into some
Appelt's
they
speech extent
pragmatic
framework
illustrates
how
work in
theory
act than
questions insight
and
AI.
are
Although
answer,
these
theory.
act marries
and
Appelt's
utterances
can
give
approaches
act
speech work
is
work
is
reasonably
of
the
approach
throwing
probably
Allen's
together
of
representative
more
further
us
important
because
to
a Gricean
theory value be
up
because
interpreted
it as
-39-
multiple
speech
computational speech
act
in
tended
turn,
for
speech
to
producing
an
maxims
must
The
have the
for
simply exhorts
sets
of
do
of
we are
that
we
that
must
there
speech
the
simple
account
acts
indirect
an
direct of
why
the
in
structure simply and leave
to
state it
at
to
us
might
perhaps Grice by
governed
to
are
(called these
apply
and
be
to
principle and
amount
right truthful
evidence. and
relevant
are
relation
the
an
which
co-operative
us
be
of
by
proposed
give
not
at
theory,
all
obvious
but
lets
consider
By using
an
acts. the of
and
of not
The maxim
of
the
of
maxim
something
in
are
To reply
in
act
a certain
also
exists,
and
our
act
is
speech
there
to
needs to
speech
there There
are are
is
why
conventional
to
a certain
set
in
clearly
certain
of
enough,
not
speech give
must
It
acts,
indirect
an
to
are
indicates
is
theory
theory.
states
speech
some
preference.
be some account
act
speech
we
of
chosen
a moment
that
If
situation use
for
manner
it
that
maxims
indirect
that
theory
one
indirect
of
a theory
that
these
what
expression.
into
acts
used.
maxim
wherever
that.
act
process
principle,
insufficient
we should
important
quality,
we can
that
is as
situation,
The
that
relation
as
there
presumptions
is
Additionally,
assume,
that
the
are
they
exhorts
obscurity
speech fact
is
speech be
ones
quantity,
violating
avoid
then
if
rules.
speech
immediately
indirect
a speech
co-operative
exhorts
is
act
indirect
incorporate
a
of
perspicuous. it
speech
should
use
be
to
sight,
with
act,
act,
else,
indicators
in
that
conversational
maxim
states
to
another
conversational/social
maxim
there
to
the
as
the
maxims:
which
that
"talk-exchanges"
of
quality
us
first
problem
indirect
the
theory
act
idea
from
recognised
status
the
that
to
any
the
quantity
information,
At
complexity
a pointer
such
various In
four
manner.
manner
into
grammatical
the
that
into
to
of
as
utterance
be mutually
consists
relation
nothing
mistaken.
called
Grice).
speech
theory:
act
suggested
elevated
say
acts
pragmatics,
subdivided by
to
achieve
as a warning
utilising
is
type
principle,
maxims,
thus
way of
appropriate
Grice
over-riding
serves
classical
also
speech
by
guided
may be
in
act
work
dimension
(1975).
perhaps
reliable
Allen's
be
us some insight
give
happen
to
a systematic, a guide
they
recognition.
This has
models
if
However,
acts.
of is
speech rules
discourse not act that
enough types govern
-40-
how
speech
questions
with
example,
if
is
not
is
particular
must to
be faced
one another
that
up to in
that
of
discourse.
problems the
context
of
falls
analysing
Ockham's
discourse.
is
that
unanswered
type, type?
act
maps not
an
down when we Another speech
that razor,
when examining
acts
these is
for
structure;
clearly
indirectly.
To argue
become evident
that
wider
is
response asked
many
act
be a speech
then
are
by invoking
perhaps
exist,
this
a speech
a question
form,
because questions
to
are
and discourse
considered
because
grammatical
explanation, consider
is
and there acts
considered
also it
speech
is
a question
that
discourse
to
respect
an answer
answer
into
fit
acts
speech
why
If
the
onto
in
ignore act
a
adequate to
come
that
problem
relations to
then
relation do not a lot theory
of in
-41-
2.
Discourse
2.1
Structure
Introduction
Discourse sequential
in
this
interaction
such
telephone
jobs
for
of
interaction
For
example
between
in
cannot the
interaction
in
consultation
with
is
a formal
formal
structure in
analysed issue
is:
is
universal
it
of
of
to
discourse
back
is
this
discourse some
those
of
each
have
is. the
whether
be
can
So a separate discourse,
to
there
are
their
it
distinct
a
in
own variation
terms
to
to
us to
enable
indeed
or
to
for
question
of
by
speech this
the
Expositives expounding
are of
views,
clarifying
repeatedly
used
of that
in
acts
the
usages
of
exposition
conducting and of
we may dispute
of
involving arguments,
references. as to
whether
We have these
it
theory
act
question
category
an The
whether
importance
the
an analysis
followed explanation.
integrate
recognised out
some
can ask the
The precedence
Austin
theory
act
needs
desirable,
structure. way,
speech
goes this
of that
expositives:
the
a
whether
situation
structure or
is
is
conversation.
a formal
structure
when carrying
relationship called
for
rules
so what
important
discourse
of
that
discourse
to
possible,
with
to
say a classroom
is
there
an introduction
introduction
is
types
proximity
the
and if
no less
in
forms
all
conversation
discourse
of
discourse
to
perhaps
that
nature.
the
of
form
some
layout?
Clearly
for
is
interviewing
a social
different
analysis
same way as say social
assuming
structural
reason
the
discourse
of
the
in
structure
that
question
event,
and so on.
issue
central
in
because
are
social
different
conversation,
interview
a doctor
So the
Another
set
a formal
social
casual
involve
a somewhat
conversation the
includes
a classroom,
can be assumed
a telephone in
of
involves
that
some
examples
how
of
understood.
text
of
at
in
these
of
and
This
encounter
speakers
things
participants
there
All
etc.
certain
any body
interaction
explanation
explained
speakers.
as one might
conversations,
candidates
of
or more
two
is
to
refers
the
with
discourse
context
between
conversation
concerned
in
organisation
Discourse
that
is
structure
the and said are
he
-42-
not
verdictive,
acts
refer
(Austin
1962, p. 161).
also
speech
performative to
(Searle
in
his to
in
Another
got
the
indirect
to
of
the
relate
discourse.
the
in
we have
discourse
that
theories
if
assess
coherent
then
we would
analysis
approach
section
I
for of
Schegloff
of
of
which of to
a
could totally the
two
discourse re-examine is
this
that
suggests
light
have
be
to
be forced
example
the
constitutive
theory
our
he calls
in
acts,
for
discourse
of
us to
more
particular,
1986)
rules
structure
two prove
that
in
of
of
the
we find
for
(Searle
"no".
force
Levinson
a set
is
acts
work
a set
of
theory
would
a later
we have
a definite
is
illocutionary
of
and if
speech
1983,
acts:
wrong
case,
conversational
is
act
this
theory.
act
indeed
illocutionary
"Could
theory
speech
is
speech
in
Indeed
theories
act
for
structure
element
serve
same way that
that
way
incompatible,
a re-examination
of
from
the
findings and Sacks
(Levinson
two
competing
the
discourse
p. 356). In
this
analysis
approach
been
developed
example
is
analysis
to
analysis
conversational
have
approaches
there
Sinclair
and ),
and Coulthard
is
approach
is
there
important
extent
because
compatible At
not. included
lower
which
has
others,
see
for
a perfect
marriage
model level
for
example categories
of
between (Sinclair that
theory,
act
the
description
discourse
speech
not
discourse
although
levels the
with
low
a good
analysis
speech
with
in
similarities
are
amongst
is
1973).
some
Coulthard
(1975)
conversational
and Sacks
are
is
is
Sinclair
which
categories
structural
cit.
some
all
of
The first
and Sacks
approaches
first
structure.
by Schegloff
(Schegloff
These
however
of
The second
example.
describe
discourse
to
approaches
op.
the
acts? "
threaten
have
structure
element
question:
on speech
even
we
theory.
the
speech
bearing
...
discourse
of
rest
structure
final
conversation for
the
expressions
discourse
answer
rules
expositives]
exchange.
variations
the
commissive
1979 p. 6).
the
missing
to
or
[of
number
conversational
when cataloguing
utterance
However
to
made reference
acts Some
his
An enormous
as well...
seem to
Searle
behabitive,
exercitive,
act the
analysis descriptions, two.
and describe
In
the
Coulthard discourse
-43-
markers
than
rather
Sinclair
of
speech
Coulthard's
and
Conversational largely
that
In discourse
1.
Is
Searle
described
in
indicative
of
if
of
bearing It
on
because
speech
acts
the
relationship
2.
The
to
discourse
act
theory,
in
to
answer incorporate it
does
is
not
relates
discourse.
another
If
act explain
under
certain is
from
be
that
fairly
conventional
we accept
that
in
that
acts,
that
include how
speech
central speech
to act
act
is
exploring
a structure
theory?
act
theory
because
as
of can
acts the form
has it
This conversational
notion
to
stands, speech
discourse
of
it
it
how
of
to
relates
by
theories
how
speech
be paired
of acts
is
also over
preferred of
how
and
It
second. is
The
if
how
also
speech
with
act
explained
surface
circumstances.
speech
but
Chapter
acts.
explanation
constrains
one
speech
theories
an explanation
a pair why
are
by
Furthermore,
a plausible
speech
structure
conventional
there
speech
some One).
(see
compatible
existing
be
must
no
solved
speech
theories
Chapter
is
and
not
have
with
aspect
with
in
pointers
dimension.
markers,
to
organisation absent
would
speech
desirable
must
phenomena
discourse
first
affect
relational
other
to
structure
it
in
fit
appear
be
an
"regularities". current
fundamentally
merely
are
the
problems
does
and
relationships
with
there
assuming
a relational
to
only
This to
relate
of
there
discourse
other
way
sort
to
then
structure,
the
for
theory
act
is
question
some allow
it
that
theory
it
mere
may well
that
is
are
several
are
problems
is
what
this
that are
for
questions:
the
was discussed
discourse
question and
issue
theory
approach
aspects
there
These between
second
problems
There that
theory.
act
but
implausible
indicate
that
speech
(this
that
analysis
are
act
or
claims
relational
discourse.
to
example,
there
somewhat
whatsoever
discourse,
to
structure,
true,
speech
fundamental
ask three
conversational
acts,
seems
One)
for
discourse
is
this
speech
(1986)
act
be
to
2.2.
between
structure
the
a description
appears
speech
section
relationship
a definite
there
in
we need to
structure
illusion?
Even
the
for
hand
other
conventional
be described
exploring
the
on
with
will
2.2
section
work).
analysis
incompatible
reasons
(see
acts
preference but
analysis,
is
theory.
theory
is
an integral
part
of
an
-44-
explanation
discourse
of
certain
aspects
speech
act
Coulthard
of
discourse
theory.
This
model
discourse.
a
certain
exchanges
conversational
exchanges theory.
act
must
developed
rather
expressed.
The
dialogue,
and
exchanges as
of
3.
discourse,
claimed
that in
theory
the
an explanation
then
it
speech
must act
currently
2.3
describes
Although
structure. an
insight
interesting
discourse 1983), Gricean insertion
analysis. suggests
at
For
sequences
Litman
classroom
for
example,
considerations
such
levels;
bound
within
the
to the
for
have
example the
if
theory,
act
speech of
whole
However
scrutiny.
same sort
act
speech
puts
approach
replace
to
incompatible
for
need close
a
up with
structure
a
future (1988)
of
hierarchy.
fundamentally the
it.
with theory
level
analysis
is
up
a plausible
is
an
independent
one
there
have
to
bound
is
what
solving
that
problems
does.
models
some computational incomplete,
best into
some
example,
a possible
maxims.
to
way be
be
claims
of
are
some
that
to
discourse
be capable
beliefs
relates
as
and Schegloff
theory
Section
in
assuming
and these of
stand
some
conversational
doubt,
such
at
(1983)
and
and
integrally
must
then
of
organised
acceptable
two
to
proves
theory,
act
Levinson
it
that
of
discourse
structure,
totally
other
it
is
question
theory?
least
structure
and
speech
with
at
is
then
discourse
is
theory
act
are
2.2)
come
adjacency
level
some
model the
acts
play.
it
the
and
language,
third
The
at
theory
speech
of
that
of
independent
ideas
section
into
come
see
at
Coulthard
(see
organization
certainly
individual
in
and
govern
how topics
with
levels
discourse
act
how we use theory
can
of
if
However
higher
at
we
speech
because
and
strategies
pedagogic
explanation
is
transactions,
or
Thus
almost
of
Sinclair
the
speech
that
rules
are
how
Sinclair
in
above
that
accept
independently
hierarchical
the
concerned than
for
level
and
also
operate
catered
strictly
This
be
structure
is
the
conversational
must
we
organization
by
At
speech
structure
described
in
of
Allen's
computational (1985)
these
also
the plan
models
based
conversational
some
discourse give
often posed
problems
explanation gives
of
model of
analysis.
(Allen
one of
insight
by
the into
-45-
2.2
Linguistic
Discourse
Approaches
Analysis
Levinson
based
286).
p
Sinclair
Sinclair
for
At
transaction
level
top
of
an unordered of
consists
a set
Mn)
in
which
P is
a preliminary
Ta
terminal
one.
(Sinclair
transaction
indicate
that
at
of
least
between
transactions.
the
meat
of
the
interaction
between
also
known
as teaching
The exchanges
teacher
pupils
and finally The
the
moves
well
concerned
which
level
or with
so the
smallest
essentially
are
are
exchanges
are
and
pupil,
and
medial
and
a preliminary
periods
controlling
the
the one and
or
of
more
acts
Coulthard's together
boundaries
for
silence.
The
discourse,
for
move.
presented from
the
response.
pupils
grouped
discourse
feedback
a response
may elicit to
moves,
initiation
an
of
consists
some new material
Sinclair roughly
into
down further
and optional
of
consist
be of
teacher
short
even
form
exchange
medial
optional,
teacher
response
feedback
of
may
markers
categories:
the
themselves
Acts
Ma
The medial
move contains
provide
primitive
analysis.
and
to
Each
the
of
exchanges
exchange
classroom
by an optional
by the
lesson
the
transactions.
of
broken
themselves
an initiation
Typically
of
exchanges.
are
a typical
is
and terminal
The preliminary
move followed
analysis
p. 25)
a unit
markers
which
of
structure
comes
exchanges
cit.,
boundary
of
clear.
structure
the
analysis
ordered
op.
consist
must
exchange.
for
exchange
and Coulthard
The parentheses
less
a hierarchical
series
of
the
of
(T)
PM (M2...
and
their
work
between
becomes
levels of
the
at
analyse
propose
descriptive
the
consists
which
they
which
different
discourse.
to
(Levinson
distinction
the
analysis
attempted
discourse
notions)
closely
example,
conversational
Coulthard
dialogue
five
with
and
and
for
more
in
work
related
we look
(1975)
the
(or
acts
if
However
analysis
classroom
speech
Coulthard
and
discourse
on
that
states
mistakenly
is
analysis op. cit.
Structure
Discourse
to
form
which
discourse into
three
example
OK,
second
group
is
act
is
example
one
right
-46-
called
nomination
pupil
as
in
a participant
informational
content
informatives
and directives. is
It not
entirely
based
for
warn
against
equating
We are
interested
on
the
enable
The
that
Sinclair
speech
acts
too
has
is
work
they
closely
a
called
Coulthard's
Indeed
theory
act
nominate group
are
and
theory.
act
to
third
there
example
speech
teacher
discourse.
the
therefore
clear
to
serves
which
themselves their
with
own
work
an
utterance
and thus are it
is
it
is
structure
such
conjunction
with
identified
in
three
one
of
be
a temptation
is
them
speech
elicitation, discourse
check act
discourse account
and acts
discourse
act has
teacher
set
progress.
they
are
that
is
acts situated, totally
speech
other
Whereas,
are
the
what
all
discourse
the is
heavily
whereas independent
speech
for
this
to
act
context,
any
only
do
and
acts: the
that
the
and
take
example
the
occurs is
the
after
concerned
metastatement
have
of
be
for
upon
acts
For
question,
acts:
In
speech
a many-
acts.
discourse
it
follow.
dependent
is
discourse
might
the
to
might
Additionally,
the
because
only
directive
there
discourse;
pupils
there or
the
others.
within
the
so named for
a task
of
acts
these,
there
and
discourse
in
figures
One reason
model
but
and
amongst
within
is
acts
acts with
that
made
informative
theory,
by
may the
identified
be
discourse
as
in
Coulthard
extent
Of
discourse
of
been
act.
act
speech
what
already the
such
realised
position check
in
question
to
mark
1990).
and
model
a speech
clue
to
a study
Sinclair to
has
acts
acts
command.
introduction
discourse
point
may be
relate the
of
the
and
clue
state(ment)
Coulthard's
act
intended
from
is:
and
between
whether
and Smith
by
theory
in
is
(Holdcroft arises
of
an utterance
p14).
proposed
equate
counterparts
the
in
like
remotely to
cit.
act
groups
relationship
example,
an
Sinclair
distinct
are
their
speech
Firstly,
acts?
op.
model
discourse
the
a response,
it
of
and so on. "
naturally
the
as
function
the
in
evoke
whether
discourse,
that
in
we ask about
to
its, ýlf,
discussed
also
question
their
questions
intended
the
hand]
other
an utterance
and Coulthard
A
to-many
is
in
of
of
a response
issue
with
sort
whether
(Sinclair
speech
or part
the
a boundary
This
[on the
other
with
occurs
as
words,
the
the
context
in
which
been
defined
in
a way
hence
there
would
be
-47-
some difficulty
in
Sinclair structure is little
discourse
of
teacher
it
is
Coulthard
it
that
clear
model
telephone
would
discourse
have
attempts
attempt.
Her
modifications
Sinclair
and
Coulthard
i. e.,
the
act,
that
acts
she
"expressive out
of
in
what
discourse
markers
Schiffrin
of
existing
to
the
subclass
utterance
include
"Requests
is
speech
level
items
a more
such
of
as
indirect
of
as
such
be
somewhat
for
discourse
of
speaker's
I
ask
accuse/excuse
the
an attempt includes
also
inform/comment.
and
following
moves she adds the
a
you from
be
to
She
act.
to
example
for
appears
speech
of called
modification
it
level
between
see
Can
as:
interesting
theory,
act
would
-
modifications pre-topic
she
the
appears
treatment
pairs
the
lowest
what
an
of
the
comprehensive
a type
conversational
the
of
levels
interaction
complex
any
such
at
which
a
to
just
categorisation
very
rest
all
added
hey,
and
model
made
additions She
Sinclair
status.
different of
Thus
example,
their
a
of
view
categorise
At
the
however
This
small
equal
where
point.
any
for
tailor
has
and also
the
example
This a
at
of
It
participants
map
several
example
fact
for
are
which
point
in and
Other
question?
to
is
to
First
some
for
control
the
with
structured.
discourse,
for
at
a classroom.
(1987)
markers.
(1981)
markers.
particles"
disguise
rights"
made
concerned
the
of
to
made
were
called
place
been
two.
situations,
hierarchy.
she
rigidly
two people
Burton
situation.
is
be easy
not
between
conversation
However
over
open discourse
onto
only
the
of
take
can effectively
is
(group)
one
direction
the
over
which
where
the
of
analysis
discourse
classroom
control
the
a marriage
and Coulthard's
of
a form
attempting
to
the
list
of
moves:
i)
supporting
moves,
to
serve
which
support
the
preceding
move. ii)
challenging the
iii)
moves,
previous
re-opening
in
which
some way or
bound-opening informative
up the
topic
in
presented
move. moves,
challenged iv)
which
hold
moves, and
re-open
has
been
other.
which
comment
a move that
acts
the
allow to
of
addition the
discourse
exchanges:
explicit
enlarge
framework.
Burton boundary
also exchanges
recognises and
two
types
conversational
of
exchanges.
Boundary
-48-
exchanges conversational transaction.
boundary
exchanges
are
by Burton
structure
argument
exchange:
of
(Burton
).
op. cit. take
place
conversational
move) The
moves. described
boundary
at
the
Conversational
followed
an by
is
types
(or
opening one
or
exchanges while
re-opening
several
or
supportive
the
original
of
exchanges
optional
essentially
Coulthard's
by
same
that
as
work.
Schegloff
and
Sacks
adjacency utterances.
of
been
by
(1973),
the
pair,
of
Sacks,
(1972)
conversational
Examples
of
which
Schegloff
Schegloff
a seemingly
hand
other
ethnomethodologists has
The basis
on the
analysis
work
of
with
two
transactions,
of
a
and so on.
conversational are
by
countered
move,
An
Analysis
important
the
and
describe
to
(1985).
identifies
openings
are
and
Conversational formulated
be used
a move
make up a
modifications
Schiffrin
exchanges
level
Sinclair
of
Burton
begin
transaction
in
terms
exchanges
The
and
by
proposed
exchanges,
the
example,
up by a supportive
exchanges
challenging
to
whereas
that
exchanges
appeal for
in
boundary
explicit
"normal"
can,
followed
transaction,
each
certain
an argument
level
the
of
the
be described
move,
At
a
as they
of
could
challenging
that
is
There
proposed the
the
mark
some
adjacency
most
Jefferson
(1974),
and
Pomerantz
(1978).
is
approach
perhaps
between
relationship include
pairs
the
of
and
analysis
obvious
originally
was
pairs
question-answer
and offer-acceptance. Schegloff adjacency
(1973)
and Sacks pairs
are
definition:
a more precise
give
of
sequences
two
that
utterances
are: i)
adjacent
ii)
produced
iii)
ordered
iv)
typed,
by different as a first
requires second or
a
particular
a particular parts)
e. g.
rejections,
part
and a second
part
that
so
speakers
second offers
greetings
first (or
part of
range acceptances
require
greetings,
require
and so on. Additionally, uttered,
when the
speaker
the
first
must
stop
part
of
speaking
an adjacency and the
next
has
been
speaker
must
pair
-49-
at
some point first
The
insertion
(1)
(1)
A:
I'd
(2)
B:
In
(3)
A:
No,
(4)
B: OK. what (4)
inserted just
in
between
one.
criterion
of
adjacency
conditional
also
are
adjacency
describes
as
if
answer
it
of
from
is
issued
by different
are
pose
few problems
and Coulthard
called
is
to
For
Searle
it
why". what
adjacency conversation
the
idea
of
is
that
a criterion is
immediately that
suggests
noticeably
absent.
up is
sets
must
discourse,
but
the
not
a an
receive is
it
a set
to. two parts This
of
an
adjacency
In
questions. is
there
above,
the
at
occurs and is
to
appears
criterion
rhetorical
described
an
the act
beginning about
a statement
to
the
it
topic
is
not It
but
then
and
not
to
want
the
of
theory
act
follow.
pair,
I
is
answer
conversation
seminars,
where
I
and
wrong,
no
will
the
be intend
it
encompasses
as
a second
analysis turn
Did
question,
so much
not
start
could
a
ask
seminar
a question, has
theory
act
speech
"question"
This
speech
a sense, is
about
question:
that
his
got In
the
say a question
structure
a seminar
wrong?
a statement
Searle
that
with
it
A meta-statement
(rhetorical)
get
suggests
follow. example,
the
are
relevance
that
dialogue
type
a class-room
pairs
Levinson
then
speakers.
a meta-statement.
for
part
expectations.
model,
(1983)
second
we consider
unless
not
p. 306)
be attended
is
are
is
as well-formed
criterion
sequences
relevance a
that
to
(2)
adjacency
be replaced
conditional
have
that
pair
Sinclair
count
pair
Levinson
four
(op. cit.
appear,
specifies
to
second
to
adjacency
another
where
a pair,
what
that
expectations The
please.
between.
Conditional
that
rule
in
pair
should
fails
part
states
formation
of
the
of
(1972)
Insertion
Schegloff
part
second
but
between.
sequence
and predictable
the
as
a
first
relevant
number
pair,
another
relevance.
a
given
with
utterances
components
Schegloff
what
an adjacency
inserted
what
two
name?
describes
of
two
the
pair.
Kent.
example
of
the
a Farnborough
to
He
that
adjacency
Hampshire?
form
is
(3)
like
restricted
if
is
occur
the
of
sequences:
and
and
between
frequently
there
part
second
requirement
However,
adjacent. pair,
the
produce
is taking
a
question
"I
believe
to
explain the
part only is
whole of
an
about rigidly
-50-
defined.
However
Coulthard
is
the
far
that
not
criterion
part
and a second
first
be ordered
must
to
except
is
that the
relationship
between
the
The final
part
points
least
any given
limited
set
(Levinson
op.
on the
notion to
parts he
standing,
one
is
absent
in
conventional
and is
of
a
structural
typed
are
particular
such
so that
second
its
the
a small
concept
tight
a As
part.
or
at it
cease,
will
in
organization
principal
the
attraction.
The they
the
of
of
adjacency
Not
an adjacency
pair
there
is
a ranking
operating
that
at
least
is
This
notion
idea
is
one
is
is
a dispreferred alternative
of
equal the
over
preferred
and
are
Whereas
simpler.
or
well
in
a
delay
given
an
with
Additionally,
given.
given
at than
a significant
is
may be
are
seconds
as
alternative
potential
preferred
perhaps
such
a particle
all
rather
much
by
marked
pair
a linguistic
that
structurally
are
by
concept organization.
part
such
dispreferred
is
there
the
that
marked why
two parts
part
preference
alternative
indirect
an
or
form.
This
account
contains act
On
theory,
for
markers
and
top
or
of
four
repair Repair
turns
clearly
gives
some
level
that
is of
absent
in
the
of
use
investigation.
conversational that
structures The most
a conversation.
parts
second
account
local
essentially
higher
and
usage
further
needs
is
are in
language it
example
first
of
matching of
what
there
organisation,
the
of explanations
some
discourse
are
Any
seconds,
first
the
i. e.,
mitigated
three
of
one.
delivery,
speech
first
dispreferred.
dispreferred
the
second.
a
Levinson,
alternatives
unmarked,
account
argument,
p. 306).
states
psychological
in
our
the
requires
of
cit. to
according
least
to
pair
part
the
is
that
conversation
of
adjacency
as a
imposes
that
describe
to
seems,
range
the
ordered
out
for
Unless
second
is
ordering
two parts
is
criterion first
particular
rests
first
and
theory.
act
Again,
that
pair
significant
the
between
Levinson
idea
the
by Sinclair
conversation.
an adjacency
part,
relationship
speech
that
particularly
not
observe
from
removed is
The third
described
situation
classroom
map
important
of
onto these
and pre-sequences. (Schegloff,
Jefferson
and
Sacks
1977)
is
a
mechanism
-51-
that or
deals even
correction
the
of
someone
other
the
might
(5)
How did
The
above is
which
and
is
kind
a
the
sequence is
the
(8)
A:
Keep off
the
types
of
pre-sequences
pair
starts
they
part
certain
part
clearer.
kinds
of
of
turn.
type
that
second
prefigures
turns For turn
a
e. g.
grass. include
with
a greeting,
is
a question
A pre-request
pre-invitations, be
to that
where
followed the
sets
by
an for
ground
e. g.
(9)
A:
(10)
B: Yes,
(11)
A:
Can I buy
of
pre-announcement
that
(12)
A:
(13)
B: What?
(14)
A:
Guess
precedes
by
Terasaki
is
exactly
its
as For
announcement.
some
is
(1976)
the name
example:
what.
to
also
again.
intermediate
the
higher
some
that
lunch
for
egg mornay
addition
organisations
described
pre-sequence
a pair
are
here?
concert
please.
A
Its
the
indeed.
pre-announcement. suggests,
for
a ticket
Two seats
type
there
An example
a
first
that
summons.
Uh?
In
both
a pre-sequence
for
reason
has
make the
containing
B:
Another
by
I mean how could
dialogue
to
refer
(7)
a request,
level the
organise
described
structures
the
of
overall
called
structures
totality
above,
a
within
exchanges
conversation.
specific
(1972)
Schegloff that
conversations called recognition telephone caller
to
used
Hey!
invitation.
there?
to
repair
A:
first
by the
(repair
item).
repairable
a classroom
(6)
Other
initiated
other
the
of
(repair
a living?
of
summons
containing
or
monks get
a self-initiated
example
the
the
from
utterance
a certain
may be self-initiated
speaker
earned
Pre-sequence
mishearings
be:
self-repair
have
misunderstandings,
item),
repairable
than
A:
of
Repair
non-hearings.
speaker
of
the
with
an
opening
identifies
occur section
conversations) announces
his
the
comes reason
for
of
the
identification,
which
Following
occur.
in
sequence
beginning
the
at in
a
opening
the
first
the
call.
topic The
telephone conversation and
greetings section slot first
in
(still in
which
topic
slot
the is
-52-
a
privileged
from
prior
which
are
slot turns.
can
to
section, sections
must
without
one and
of
also
typically
a
ii)
pre-closing
iii)
a
is
the
of
ideas
the
without
undue
of
closing Closing
is
haste.
down
closed important
something
A closing
to
sequence
include
may
which
giving
to
regards
the family
other
of
discourse
ideas
the
of this
of to
attempt
who
apply
discourse
larger
to
etc.
One example
(1985)
analysis
conversational
favour
a
etc.
apply
units.
Mazeland
and
as
cheerio
to
attempts
larger
Houtkoop
health
bye,
elements:
...
such
appropriate)
up on a person's
recent
to
OK, well
right,
as: (if
a call
been al.
of
the
conversation.
topic
some
such
exchange
have
work
is
conversation
having
checking
a final
of
the
that
procedures
there
the
still
items
typing
et.
down
that
so
local
are
Finally
arrangements,
granted,
Schegloff
topics
of
etc.
members
There
arising
come a series
a topic
shut
down
closing of
constraints
following:
the
making
iv)
to
done
be
must
topic
a call.
participants
contains i)
down
balanced
topical
topics.
closing
serves be
first
the
throughout which
from
free
previous
for
operate
say,
After
related
Mechanisms
is
which
units
(DUs). They
speaker
primary is
description upon
Mazeland
i)
is
who
the
of
following
the
DUs places
underway.
unit
The
restrictions (Houtkoop
model
analysis
a
there
DUs where
open
and
conversational
of
conversational
and
p. 601):
cit.
The primary turn
floor
is
there
DUs where
closed
model the
type
closed
traditional op.
their
holding
on the
a negotiation
the
in
distinguish
is
speaker
a DU until
continue
DU
marks
which
unit
constructional
-a
to
expected
a
completion
has been produced. ii)
The
is
DU
sequentially DU a recipient
contributive
should
recipient) model,
that
is
for
implicative
be
placed the
around
can
The
make.
to
according end
kind
of
DR
(The
DU-
the
turn-taking
turn-constructional
the
of
the
units.
iii)
If
there
marked primary
is
speaker
transition
as DU-incomplete,
there
speaker(PS)
to
at is
become the
a
point
a preference next
speaker.
which for
is the
-53-
After
a recognizable
operative
again,
Another
be
higher
discourse
units
discourse
adjacency
of
Although at
ground.
model,
both
each For
example,
and
Coulthard
Houtkoop
and
Mazeland
can
embedding
of
talks
talk
to
about
accomplish
in
must
occur
at
is
where
levels
in
the
discourse
the
The both
and
is
that
an approach
the
at
share
structure.
that
exist
hierarchies
way the
detail
of
they
differences
any real
to
appear
hierarchical
advocate
either
level
the
areas
strictly
that
in
structure
hierarchical
a
and Polanyi
suggests
or
are
higher
at
model
This
defined,
in
discourse
to
advocate
hierarchical.
been
also
there
other,
approaches
models
Polanyi used
analysis
structure
and
are
approaches
Sinclair
the
discourse
sequencing
types. which
becomes
model
on conversational
which
recursive
units
two
with
common
in
taking
started.
based
(1988)
various
turn
tasks.
the
odds
the
DU is
model
the
interactional
specific
be
level
as
DU,
next
by Polanyi
represented
the
of
the
until
described
was
end
lower
have
levels
in
the
model. down
Even
be common ground
to
appears approaches
such
theory, it take
they
is
markers are
impossible
not
account
of
conversational
to
such
Additionally, sequential is
approach functional can
too
flexibility
approach
analysis to that
cover
the
it
then
of
between
and
speech
theory
act Thus
approach.
act
to
were
resemble
the
the
importance
of
approach
The discourse to
two
analysis the
encompass hand
other to
analysis
conversational analysis
the
These
is
approach incredible
defined
well
suggest
criticisms
approaches
more
conversational
be sufficiently
language.
the
markers
come to
stress
the
able
appear
Both
more closely.
On the
not
would
discourse
be
language.
speech
approaches
the
to
does
if
that
based.
flexibility
something
analysis
however but
rigid
of
discourse
two
and utterance
seem
the
approach
formal,
boundary
of
there
apparent.
conventional
markers,
organisation,
first
at
from
in
the
not
absent
suggest
analysis
is
hierarchies
the
of
importance
are
present
levels
that
the
recognise
although
lowest
the
at
might
be
more
satisfactory. There approaches
is that
another is
most
area
of
striking
common
ground
and yet
appears
between to
the have
two gone
-54-
totally is
model
the
Burton
(Response)
discourse,
feedback
the us
said,
conversational
is
pair
initiation is
Perhaps
first
(see part
a remarkable
the
two
a first
not
the
these
so much at
This
part. If
second
we take then
part,
descriptions.
two odds
The
adjacency
above).
as the
between
are
himself.
heart
description
above),
B responds
and a second
and response
similarity
approaches
its
open
response.
and then
initiative
part
the
(see and
A speaks the
to
approach
initiation
has at
approach
and typed
as the
there
Coulthard
and
be discarded
of
taking
of
their
should
cycle
possibly
consisting
ordered
tailor
makes sense,
analysis
a pair
pair:
element
this
A has
to
order
basic
a
with
Conversationally, what
Sinclair
the
of
(Feedback)
in
that
suggested
leaving
heart
the
move sequence:
Initiation
to
At
undocumented.
first
as might
appear.
2.3
Computational
One model
of
Models
the
most
discourse
of
sees
discourse
as
a
(Reichman
op.
explaining
a claim
iii)
challenging
iv)
giving
v)
shifting
a topic
resuming
a preceding
form space
to
into
fits
the
conversational
of
between
imposes
in
moves
serve
as a continuation
types
six
of
of
what move:
conversational
a claim
then
terms
the
of
models
previous
level
states context
by
discourse analysis
descriptions
of
units. discourse
onto
structure op.
p. 24).
cit.
the
conversational
that
a discourse
spaces
discourse
of formal
merely
discourse
(Reichman
defined
Reichman
of
subject
a further
space
partially
contains.
structured
conversational
moves are
higher
a context
is
discourse)
Reichman
a claim
support
Reichman
(1985).
Reichman
of
computational
p. 21)
cit.
ii)
boundaries
a
related that
She identifies
a claim
because
defined
functionally
presenting
analysis
build
conversational
i)
vi) This
was that
among utterances
has gone before.
to
attempts
ambitious
structure
of
Structure
Discourse
(specifically,
series
interspersed
of
it
contains.
The
in
context it
structures structure
the
can
be
-55-
Reichman the
formal
to
detailed,
in
Sinclair
Coulthard's
to
approach
Chapter
One. plan
discourse.
A major
linguistic
phenomena
(Litman The
op.
structure to
attempts meta-plans
cope
for
idea
A
is
handling
deal
introducing
abandoning
header,
is
is
which
the
into
the
dialogue,
taken
next
and
for
the The
is
meta-plan
analysis
in
from theory
of
a of
surface
as domain
people
do with
the
etc.
A meta-plan
is
the
of
effects
is
are
of that
meta-plans
specified
of
part
as
having
a
a decomposition
what the
specify
One,
a sort
specifying
introduce
specify
plans
Chapter
with
meta-plan, to
used
which which
deals
there plans,
the
some explanation.
that
example
as data
and a
between in
also
known
dialogue
been described
about it
plans), plans",
previous
executing
that
knowledge
(known
the action
minimum
meta-plan is
be
to
requirements
be performed.
INTRODUCE-PLAN
be
can
specified
INTRODUCE-PLAN(speaker,
DECOMPOSITION:
REQUEST(speaker,
EFFECTS:
WANT(hearer,
plan)
NEXT(action,
plan)
STEP(action,
plan)
AGENT (action,
as: hearer,
hearer,
action,
plan)
action)
hearer)
p. 29)
cit.
REQUEST
(1985)
using
HEADER:
op.
plan-
described
use
plans,
act
CONSTRAINTS:
(Litman
the
new and needs
a description
to
his
plan-based
relationships
For
plans.
constraints
meta-plan
in
(1983)
was that:
work
a plan-about-plans
of
speech
to
rule-governed.
have
Plans
plans
which
of the
meta-plans
executive
plans
"things
with
stack).
meta-plan
with
plans
maintaining
of
a
and
plan
a knowledge
as a plan
the
out
typical
using
structure
but
carries
of
as
p. 15).
cit.
system
her
highly
are
not
equivalent
by Litman
to
system
dialogues
many
work.
was extended
of
a
in
though
anything
understanding,
assumption of
be
language
recognition
is
approach,
by Allen
work
constitute
approach
to
her
recognizes
claims
was taken
natural
structure
she
Coulthard
appear in
acts
Allen's
sentential
The
and
approach
that
hierarchical
do not
there
different
based
(known
largely
that
a program
above
Sinclair
the
that
and
A
the
described
Reichman's
similar
describe
on to
goes
structures
discourse. ways
then
is
the
speech
act
that
is
used
to
issue
the
meta-
-56-
is
WANT
plan, operative
agent
and
the
WANT operator
and
AGENT
able
to
are
plan
including
the
that
to
used
the
monitor
of
executing
by the
plan
recognizer.
each
meta-plan
to
plan
below
is
stack that
domain
the
Although
limitless
not
how the
abandoned
discourse.
the
one of
unless
from
suspended
plan
2.4
Artificial
Other
Much around
use that
structure
of
consists
These
early
the
current
this
point
allows
must
they
may have
not
the
During
the is
plans the
stack
currently The
plan
and
meta-plans
the
meta-plans
to
its
have
tackled. work
to
first
and may never
clear
introduced
by
reminds is
very
likely
to
speaker
dropped
is
open
or That
way...
given
in
regularity is
some
it
Secondly,
a new topic
is
are
housekeeping
great
the
there
recognizer
and domains?
plan
task
stack.
appear
plan
with
a
modifying.
Approaches
in
work
it
is
be
re-introduced, do so.
to
effort when to
a class of
with
to
remove
The the
of
1975).
slots
that
a set
of
that
fills
frame
A
be
to
objects
Discourse
discourse
understanding
(Minsky
may have
associated
the
with
housekeeping
be met by anything
that
be
stack.
a collection slots
STEP
of
the
and
makes a determined
frames
of
in
must
Within
interesting
out
unless
stack
the
hearer
plans
Oh, by the
as:
Intelligence
the
of
the
the
plans
whenever
speakers
for
then
problem
at
all
are
does
happen
such
of
very
carries
which
have
interrupted
become
of
situation,
not
is
how does
example,
the
execution
dialogue they
it
that
stack
plans
this
determined
objects.
plan
joint
marked
performed.
it,
top of
a
approach
some strategy
In
me...
that
variety
For
means of
plans
domain,
an almost
out
in
problems
an unrestricted
clear
active
Litman's
difficult
very
the
at
a description
currently
to
the
maintained
effectively
are
related
In
is
action
co-
a
and suspended
up and maintained
plan
as
and corrections.
built
executing
a
question.
a stack
refers
is
be
that
specify
plan
the to
action
clarifications
a dialogue,
of
in
is
various
next
that
plan
stack
its
be the
hearer
the
adopt
NEXT specifies
will
the
that
assumption therefore
will
constraints
perform
The
course
on the
be performed.
to
action
based
describe conditions the
them procedural
slot.
centred is
a
described.
data It
aspects
of
the
attached
to
them
Additionally,
information.
This
-57-
information
procedural becomes
filled
obtain
the
may is
(this
known fill
to
value
Related
frames
may be
Because
frames
contain
object,
this
explicitly
particular
room
frame
the
that
assumption Scripts frames.
to
be
There
are
built
an
Thus
old. all
the
independent
by
using
these
could
be
idea
will
say
semantic
the
system
based
in
supposed language.
(1991)
Rich
PTRANS is
the
for
an
physical
information
new
out
Schank
claims
independent
language
using
a
on
were
primitives,
represented
of
of
described
building
a
adaptation
which
(see
have
dialogue,
a
based
an
been
door
understanding
example,
means
meaning
Conceptual
the
objects,
primitive
dependency
resulted
between
what
modifiers
of
One
example
that
he or
but
Schank
of
actions in
called
the
set
of
actions
(adverbs)
was the
relationship
sentence
is
units.
actions, Conceptual
objects.
interactions
possible
(verbs),
between
a
primitives
semantic
and picture
such
corresponding
of
of
a
dependency
representing
and modifiers
was
a way that
primitives
categories
actions
in
Conceptual
up using
a small
in
sentences
combinations
can be built conceptual
of
from
out
which
can be represented
sentences.
built
not
sentence,
modifiers
(nouns),
objects
(adjectives).
aiders an actor
the
and
event
she causes.
Semantic which in
original
dependencies
four
language
of
dependency
conceptual
can be drawn
are in
words
script
was called
the
of
representations
semantic
are
actions
for
subject),
inferences
that
meal
1977)
primitives
MBUILD
how the
of
plus
semantic
has
an
units.
theory
to
a door.
primitives
all
object,
The second
way
has
language
semantic
basic
actions
semantic
Abelson
describing
in
of
it
the
not
to
system.
aspects
inferences
make room
a natural
of
or
how
frame
a room
mentioned
to
able
Firstly,
to of
that
is
about
slot
procedure).
though
as
whether
explicitly
and
eleven
introduction
of
been
(Schank
capable
transfer
has
and
particular
ideas.
on three
door,
the or
a
many
a frame
example
form
to
used
if
IF-NEEDED
about
be
can
that
Schank
together
done
procedure)
(an
slot
be
to
IF-ADDED
an
information
a
system
as
grouped
For
observed.
has
what
the
information
describing
slot
specify
a
primitives
were
described
into
a stereotyped or
restaurant
primitives
put
put
taking
together
a data
structure
situation a ride gave
on
such a
an overall
bus.
as
called
a
taking
a
The description
set
of of
-58-
the
that
events in
eating table,
a restaurant
ordering, The
in
the
restaurant
the
also
had
participants
There the
of
in
the
restaurant
such
as
the
fact
script,
and
more
money
that
it
For
example,
and
had
the
if
then
it
is
Semantic
in
greater Schank
A
implemented
system
of
representation
John his A script
could
system
(15)
Did also
incomplete,
for
John
table
time
this
research.
are
described
in
are
described
in
For
story.
build
might
not
a story
example
could been
have such
as: he had
After
teriyaki.
steak
a
up it
situation,
that
He ordered
for
deal
his
meal? the
where
stories
with
as:
such
a question
be
may
script
example: dinner.
to
went
information
answer
John pay
could
a
at
home.
he went
meal,
the
could
an everyday
about
the
dinner.
to
went
At
scripts
scripts
using
about in
mentioned
explicitly
It
a story
questions
answer
down
restaurant
(1977).
Abelson
and
a
was a story.
Intelligence
and
had
owner
sat
dependency
(1975)
Schank
and
restaurant
from
into
went they
the
a description
events
Artificial
conceptual
the
such
mentioned.
in
forward and
detail
that
by
a
conditions,
restaurant
infer
someone
explicitly
in
the of
to
infer
we can
primitives
that
in
menus
waiters
entry
hungry
that
taken
were
had
advantage
that
and
customers,
was
program
told
not
a step
represented
then
computer we are
a meal,
The
which
script
fact
the
as
a
objects
chairs
example, The
the
were
roles
customer
meal.
the
though
even
the
such
results
enabled
for
finding
entering,
tables,
also
were
script.
that
after
which
example
Thus
a script.
and leaving.
paying
props
script,
cooks
when executing scenes:
meal,
for
script,
script.
place
contained
eating
script
appeared
take
typically
He waited
for
correctly
answer
ages
be served.
to
He got
mad and left. A script
Did
John
One
of
the
attempted suffered only
to
eat more
(Script
SAM
then
could
(16)
called
it
system
his
Applier
from worked A telling
the for
of
newspaper
objection
that to
that
programs
stories.
fitted the
1978)
which
Unfortunately,
it
based
as any script the
whole
script
idea
of
was
scripts
used
(Cullingford
Mechanism)
same drawback stories
as
meal?
successful
make sense
such
a question
in
system
that
stereotype. scripts
is
given
-59-
by Dreyfus
(1979
Real
stories
facts
depends
that
describes
important
in as
the
story
itself.
a bus
trip
important
misanthrope
who had
(1978)
more
plan
which
attempted
plans
and
detecting
and knowledge
how
various
about
goals
linguistic
goals
what
It
the
of
the
of
writer
in (Litman
been
of
Wilensky
in
the an
of
about
stories, fulfilled
were
to
reasoning
the
work
issues
this
the
form work to
relating
concentrated
than
rather
in
nothing
or
for
algorithm
how goals
was
His
story.
goal-based
stories
story
goals
on
the
of
the
1985).
some work
intentions
participants
the
by reasoning
bottom-up
Also
be a
by
described
there
took
might
written
involved
existed,
be
not
before.
was
types
the
concerned
stories
of
phenomena.
has
There inferred
aspects
story
system
However
characters
story anyone
used
it
while
the
processing
intentional
surface
simply
Mechanism)
explanations.
regarding
passenger
agents
interacted.
they
like
script
Applier
that
the
understand
the
of
fact
would
based
goal to
goals
PAM (Plan
program
using
and
a script
[that]
thanked
not
example
the
journey,
if
relevant
But...
which
a longer
of
crucially
A
in
Schank's
the
as
For
contains
driver.
a story
part
counts
...
the
for
problem
what
on
thanks
bus
further
a
a script
passenger
the
and
pose In
approach.
the
p. 43).
from
on plan
a description
a sequence
physical
of
the
of actions
that
systems
recognition
the
of
actions (Schmidt
et.
al.
1978). has
Sidner both
carried
intentionally (1985).
Sidner multiple
and Grosz
has
by
carried
are
interested
in
that
view
systems Levesque
out
use
communication, of
Cohen
with
using
surface
by
carried
out
and
language
whereas with
work
(1979).
developing
a possible
reasoning
research
Grosz
perspectives
been
aspects
out
semantics
Kautz
is
plans.
to
to
of
concerned
develop with
have
(1985)
planning
behaviour. to
integrate
planning
Kautz
and
theory
planned
worlds
phenomena
on planning
(1985)
a formal as
linguistic
Extensions
Levesque
dialogues
understanding
a
who for
Cohen
and
theory
of
non-monotonic
-60-
2.5
Issues
in
Discourse
Returning first
to
these
of
question
the
has
been
(1986).
Searle no
there
(Holdcroft
lack
a purpose
pragmatic
op.
that
language
caused
is
his
it
is
the
theory
general
discourse a
it
if
then
goes
order
to
Indeed
he
have
arguments
that
is
the
Schegloff
the
that
Firstly,
to
conversations of
(Searle in from.
diverge
"the
background"
approach.
is
and what in
not
terms
al.
participants is
in
et.
relevant
it
speech
regularities
difficult
is
will
Thirdly
mere
he calls
what
there
between
by Grice. are
hence
is
only
at
on
to
reject
to not,
discourse
the
to
possible
is
quite
play
in
hand
idea
that
view
would
a low
stance
be
correct
to
play
for
a theory
have
a
point
and
not
sufficient
to
has
totally
on discourse
undermine
is
cognitive
understandable
to
acts
any of have
structure, Holdcroft that
argues out
reject
indeed
a structure,
we
theory
any
2.2).
section
second is
speech
if in
and in
to
answer
only
discourse
of
(see
Searle's
to
be
possible
level
conversation
role
In
holds
view
to
acts
length.
some
Searle's
a minor
background
the
at
points
speech
have
to
role
of
Searle's
this
discourse
to
be explained
cannot
that
of
It
view
Searle's
of
states
only
Searle's the
that
discourse.
he feels
what
these
view
substantial
theory.
relationships
that
is
it
views
structure.
even
of
relevance,
acts
speech
event,
a
relevance.
Searle's
accept
in
Searle's
of
be rules,
determines
Holdcroft
one,
discourse
why he feels
proposed
to
discusses
Holdcroft point
of
this
structure
of
Secondly,
type
that
cognitive the
about
However
act
real
structure
and hence
appear
that
determine
that
).
the
feels
a conversation
no
sequential
criticism
main
said
defence
speech
reasons
by a behaviour
Searle
Finally,
is
the
of
cit.
of
what
as
of
his
refutation
main
or point
states)
a thing
(1991).
theory
maxims
such
structure.
to
of
there
interesting
few
acts
This
that
four
gives
of
razor
nature
Holdcroft
adequate are
Ockham's
A convincing
in
sort
the
briefly.
examined
argued
given
be
be
been
theories
about
some
non-relational
recently
Searle
is
has
2.1:
section
is
there
little
is
in
raised
whether
Very
chapter
brought
Searle
questions
question
there
should
justify
the
the
that
presuppose
three
discourse.
because
simply
the
was
to
structure
Analysis
to
of
accept
science.
given
his
-61-
description that
of
Austin
between
speech
in
stands
any
(see
the
The
Sinclair compatible
discourse
model
Coulthard.
Some
describe and
do little in
position
each
these
forced
into is
This
a
the
it
two is
but
speech
act
theory.
The
face
by
makes adjacent
into
a and to
appear categories in
acts to
given
any
describe
we need to
acts
work
Sinclair acts
speech
of
theory
act
be
to
deal
functional
merely
speech
it
of
a great
When attempting
adjacent that
theory,
proposed
possible
that
assumption act
speech
are
discourse.
of
- what
the
examine to
relate
utterances
other. Sperber
based
the
on
theory
of
output, implications,
(Sperber
detail
in
with
(1982).
Gazdar is
this
based
and
a
theory
pragmatic
They
relevance.
depend
input
of
on a ratio
that:
suggest
to
is
the
number
of
contextual
and input
is
the
amount
of
processing
these
implications.
contextual
op.
describe
(Sperber
problems
maximal
expended.
energy
and
forward
put
output
and Wilson
and Wilson
Sperber time
derive
to
of
relevance
where
needed
(1982)
Wilson
and
Degrees
theory
but
constrain
between
relevance
the
possibility
is
he
and Coulthard
Sinclair
the
of
a piece
relationship
of
speech
However
lines
the
along
to
the
priori
on the
appears
integrate
fully
to
a
with
theory.
act
acts,
speech
act
of
a structure.
affected model
speech
done
be
to
was compatible
compatibility
with
has
speech
description
for
hence
fact
the
of
one
the
at
description
allow and
the
made
Coulthard
and
acts,
spite
on the
final
do not
discourse
question
this
His
looking
untenable.
structure how
asked
how
One).
relationship
when
that
fact
the
of
possible
in
a bearing
speech
spite
also
has
force
that
find
I
second
discourse
Chapter
stance
that
position
stated
another
between
relations
is
It
acts.
illocutionary
of
the
in
structure
originally to
act
rejecting
has
speech
relation
components of
of
himself
speech
discourse
and
is
this to
pointed
acts
class
Searle
that
However,
acts.
originally
expositive
the
speech
p. 74)
cit.
processing Their
as some
is
expanded
theory
and Wilson
1986).
approach,
for
Good's
demolition
on an attack
time
However
example
on Sperber
of
see
function in
there
Sperber and Wilson's
greater
are
Gazdar and
of
and
grave Good
Wilson's notion
of
-62-
inference
non-trivial A
by
given
Conversational
the
same way that units
the
in
any given
and answer
into
that
both onto
lower
level
Both
approaches
where
some
investigating
there that
are
of
it
A:
structure,
talk
to identify
their
place
role
further
Consider We stopped
are
mark grounds
draw
from
this
between
the
that
realised
the
following
over
in
saw some of
for
discourse is
two
that
theories
conversational
Singapore
the
is
relevance
sights,
for
streets
are
clean
of
as Orchard
enough
very
pairs:
a couple
such
a
to
eat
days Road
Merlion.
Singapore's
dis-
investigation.
be
must
contact
of
analysis
to
in
must
the
markers.
markers
discourse
at
use
discourse
there
at
apparent.
most the
markers so
is
discourse
units
one
that structure
mention
pairs,
of
is
the
examining
So it
opinion
discourse
that
into
we notice
units.
a
relevance.
investigation
theories:
level
to
and Wilson
logical
when
structure
of
points
of of
respective
sub-divided
a hierarchical
about set
adjacency
and the B:
discourse
uses
real
and
(18)
difficult
Sperber
the Firstly
lowest
in
from
difference
their
very
notion. (17)
realisations
relevance
that
structure.
discourse
conclusion
Finally, slippery
functional
from
and
describe
to
emerged
to
The
worthy
be said
must
main
the
are
with
can be
relevance
it
primitive
analysis seconds
structure.
problems
separately
pair
relevance
the
its
of
Conversational preferred
to
topical
theories
in
of
attempt
of
a more
markers
as
be possible
problem
have
theories
superimposed
has
a question-answer
discourse
and
level
discourse
in
the
issues
rival
higher
that
is
relationship
in
except
the
of
goals
discourse
syntactic
must
successful
very
acts
main
different
it
though
goal,
Several speech
sees
pre-
question
speaker's to
because
relevance
relevance,
order
made a not
Holdcroft
a
structure.
logical
higher
acts,
a
the
asks
structure,
Firstly,
as
as having
a structure
a grammatical
several
and the
He suggests
a
are
Firstly
regarded
speech
is
relevance
Holdcroft
related.
Additionally,
question
relevance.
conversational
suggests
is
there
there
the
two
sentences,
1986a, p. 2).
units,
define.
to,
functionally
are
relationships, to
1986a).
analysis
(Holdcroft
this
(Holdcroft relates
etc.
of
has been
relevance
position
relevance
of
(1986a, 1986b, 1986c, 1986d).
maxim,
eminent
the
account
Holdcroft
pragmatic
what
interesting
more
degrees
and also
off.
-63-
B
have
may not
it
but
has heard
made an effort A:
the
about to
not
(19)
Singapore
visited
We
to
B:
York
it
this
to
conversation what
the
Jorvik
is
that
this
is
It the
However more
is
There
approach
striking
The
(Burton part
and
the
of
has
first and
then
main
difference
the
a formal The
from
of
third
question
thus
and
if
conversational
if
this
unseat the
the
asks
theory
act
Examining
from
its
own
to
describe
is
core
acts. about
pairs
discourse
the because
components
Sinclair
of
model
the
as
central is
not
where
the
initiation-response pair,
an adjacency initiates
first.
the pair
adjacency
answer),
an
to
a both
of
Coulthard's
and cycle
the
and
own.
a response
that
drawn
speech
between
(a question
assumes
incompatible
structure
bleak
is
know
something
analysis
of
provides
course
not
The
is
described
act
theory
way.
fundamentally
speech
part
of
say
its
ground
of
something
second
into
of
idea
the
the
involve
question/answer
the
idea
This
initiates
part
terms
initiation-response
the
on
that
shift
only
attempt
to
conversational
structure.
dissimilar
as
common
version
to
may
to in
comes
between
in
may be
relevance
able
such
some
modified
1981)
wholly
are
be
similarity
approaches.
old
organisation.
be
should
theory
to
and
purely
acts
rival
appears
analysis
in
the
quaint
B did
that
desirable
above
associated
where
Jorvik
relevant
an attempt
sentences
sequential or
is
that
conclusion
sense,
theory
act
closely
this
to
given
speech
its
all
Possibly
between
meaningful
relationships
with
making
The
weak
key
hardly
the
and visited
territory.
was.
very
the
place.
a statement
familiar
more
a
the
Chester
perhaps
relationships
be
to
unlikely
B is
centre
in
relevance
about
thus
and
impressive.
me of
B makes
but
York
streets
of
streets.
couplet,
to
refers
the
recently
was very
reminds
narrow In
York
It
centre. (20)
ignorant
had no experience
of
cleanliness
appear
went
and hence
turns
speech different analysis
a priori an
with question:
this
to
act
to
be
are the
true.
approaches that
for
implications
the
implications
The
contender
principal
discourse
the
main
to
analysis.
conversational of
is
discourse
of
case?
The
is
theory
we see
be
speech
explanation
what
proves out
that
analysis
differences
and appear
-64-
to
occur
at
lower
conversational
both
level
as
analysis
models
view
a closer
examination
a
structures.
But
that
these
differences
Levinson
(op.
discourse
discourse the
of
two
be as great
may not
as a
analysis
and
hierarchy
of
approaches
as it
suggest
might
first
at
appear.
analysis
approach
problem,
posed
in
is
that the
the
by
a theory
force
indirect
of
conversational
speech is
theory
act
literal
the
indirect
of
speech have
not
that
suggests
problem
classical
does
explained
356)
;p
solves
an utterance
why
cit.
but
speech
The
acts. that
simply
of
some
other
force
acts.
For
example
utterance:
(21)
I ask you to
be interpreted
would its
Must
literal
force.
the
problem
away
is
pre-request (22)
indirect
than
a question
speech
acts
for
A
structure:
Saturday
the
explains
pre-requests.
using
has a four-position
seats
is
which
Levinson
on requests,
that
have
Do you
garbage?
rather
Concentrating of
the
out
as a request
a sequence
A:
take
(PRE-
matinee?
REQUEST) (23)
There
B:
are
in
plenty
the
(GO-
balcony.
and
circle
AHEAD).
In
(24)
A:
I'd
(25)
B:
OK.
the
sets
for
grounds goods
are
1976)
is
in
(Labov in
stock
inability
or
of
checked
refusal
the
Thus
most by the
followed
(27)
Here
this
to
way position
avoid
pre-conditions
for
would
is
1977).
over common
most
may be whether
above)
Levinson
requests
be a
the
This (as
that
preferred
are
pre-request
that
acceptance
prefers
effectively
encounters
as a hint
(Sinclair that
suggests
hence
altogether,
someone wants
a
something. immediately
pre-request
e. g.
'The
you are
the
be
to
appears
pre-request
the, request.
response,
Do you have
the
for
conditions
This
pre-requests the
that
check
a request
and Fanshel
form
preferred
(26)
in
fulfil
to
may be taken
pre-request
doubt
service
may be a preference
there
of
by checking
cases
What
requests.
(REQUEST).
please.
obtain.
therefore
refusal,
In
acceptance.
(22),
(24),
ranking
an acceptance
up
balcony,
the
3 turns
preference
dis-prefers
in
1 turns
position
position
because and
two
(RESPONSE).
a pre-request,
successful
In
like
Independent'?
(Provides).
1 pre-requests
can be phrased
in
order
to
get
-65-
directly
to
form
of
(28)
I don't
(29)
No I'm
that
this
can
be reached
acts
because,
strategy
the
conversational this
described
in
turn acts acts
seconds
to
the
speech
explanation
the
class
of
given indirect
(30):
Its
(31):
I'll
(32):
Thanks.
B is
that
as
interpretation
of
based
the
around
turn
into
this
way. talking
as
the
first
a
preand
inviting
that
indirect
all
indirect dis-preferred
pair.
if
first, away in
is
speech
known as hints,
best
there this
incomplete.
by Levinson
at
)
cit.
such
about
be explained
this
(op.
Additionally
sequence
acts
speech
effectively
suggests
of
for
is
an
way then Consider
example:
evening.
you a lift.
give
issued
utterance, treated
sequence
an adjacency
cannot
indirect
Levinson
then
four-turn
will
aspects
explain
compacted
when
heavily
snowing
the
illusory.
challenging
to
first
in
of
compacted act
be
the
at
pre-
problematic
quite
and
Levinson
hinted
a
through
acts
most
issues
act
can
part
the
a four-turn
explained
first
the
the
to
be
request
based
speech
investigation.
with
speech
from
going going
of
of
attempt
how
above)
were
Taking
the
further
response. might
speech
first
interesting
a request, (see
turns
indirect
most
detail
some
before
speech
p. 364)
needs
indirect
conversationally
many
cit.
is
of
accounts
speech
analysis
type
response
that:
standard
renders
op.
of
a fourth
the
indirect
without
this
of
the
of
for
p. 363)
cit.
problem
each
response
op.
so that
strategy
He suggests
indirect
of
the for
interactional
call
a pre-request
that
the
it
that
(Levinson
fourth
be
to
response
(Levinson
suggest
underlying
to
with
aspects
request
another
black?
and Levinson
explains
comparison
account show
on to
'loading'
directly
Careful
in
this
Brown
what
goes
stages.
and
note
4
a position
you have
he suggests,
intermediate
acts
of
of
directly
One
(1979)
not.
an appropriate
request
The
afraid
Levinson
is
enables
suppose
an example
pessimism.
there
Levinson
and
directly:
at
is
Brown
that
pre-request
arrived
This
4.
position
for
a request the use
sequence of
in
by
a snow-storm a lift. then
a pre-request
If
there or
Aa
non-car
we are
must
be
at
least
to
some
owner
accept
this
explanation
some
sort
of
-66-
preparatory that
if
the
request
is
(33):
Yes,
The
hint
the
it
to
on
circumstances
under
hint
cannot
be
act
that
speech
is
approach
not
as
the
is
a pre-request
perceived
Consider
than
would
almost
make
he
as
then
such
(30):
to
response
request
forbid
directly.
request request
doubt
throws
the
on
the
the
speaker
If
Another
a pre-request.
to
of
from are
directly,
type
see
obvious.
there
be made
can
fails
or
a statement
certainly
the
which
implied
the
rather
called
no
then
a
indirect
of
conversational
analysis
following:
the
(34):
or
follow.
ignores
a request
going
ignored
to
a hint
with
indeed.
convention
then
problem
either
either
is
Social
is
unlikely
respondent
that
The
structure.
(Mother
to
Son):
Must
I ask you to
take
the
out
garbage? Then consider (35):
(One stranger the
close According
to
the
single
explanation
based
on
the
second
that
that
I ask you to
the
speech
sequence.
The
but
speech
act
carry
would
discourse
speech
are
and any form
of
an important
part
make sense a prior This
action.
relative
an important
statuses
between
a theory
the
of
in
part
Additionally
used.
contract in
the
son
whereas
pre-supposes
as the
plays
acts
not
a
used
to
mother
does
out
as well
be
might
be acceptable,
would
indirect
is
there
approach
impolite,
only
politeness in
play
Must
indirect
of
polite
hearer
why indirect
to
appears
not
the
the
knowledge
mutual
type
exactly
is
participants
unravelling
a train):
analysis
- request
not
suggests
the
of
conversational
because
agreement
in
act:
window?
utterance
pragmatically
speech
another
why this
although
analysis
to
a pre-request
utterance
indirect
an equivalent
prior,
participants
indirect
speech
acts. Another to
point
be uniform
not
collapse
for
the
example
into
two
is
pre-sequences for
phenomena, serves
announcement does
about
example
same sort appear
utterances,
is
function
of to
it
that
have
the
except
that
lunch
again.
they
not
clear
do not that
appear a
as a pre-request. same B might
potential pre-empt
preIt for A's
pre-announcement:
It
(36)
A:
Guess what?
(37)
B:
Its
does
not
serve
egg mornay
for
as a vehicle
for
explaining
an indirect
speech
-67-
Its
act.
use does form
corresponding view
that
set
of
the
theory
are
indirect
However,
not.
it
because
is
speech
in
regularities
discourse
of
Several being
without of
and
explicitly
explains
the
but Finally,
approach.
when looking Levinson
A:
that
(39)
B: Here
then
DIY superstore,
A: Do you have
(41)
B:
the
the
interesting
it
perhaps
conversation in seems
speakers
analysis its
rears
may be taken its
ugly
head
as a
hint
is
use
to
extent
some
example:
Independent'?
takes
conversation
likely
to
the
rotary
gardening
in
place
following
the
get
any replacement
in
They're
a
(provides)
we are
(40)
discourse
observed
the
also
context
however
'The
you are. instead
that
of
conversational
a pre-request
consider
Do you have
the
theory.
the
being
of
have
act
is
or
are
We
conversational
driving
are
mere
examples.
something,
wants
(38)
suppose
the
some of
by context,
governed
of
problem
suggests
someone
Lets
the
at
in
themselves
most
politeness,
in
used
component.
that
case
status
no mention
gets
the
of
of
speech
Perhaps
of
types
we don't
theories
act
argument
all
in
the
that
The
this
categories
with
that
results
analysis?
important,
of
maxims
but
analysis,
the
phenomenon
the
conversational
it
Is
politeness
are
producing
that
mentioned.
politeness.
there
that
come into
is
these
analysis
aspects
treatment
observations
conversational incompatible
the
a fundamental
than
act
speech
are
more
is
that
other
be
to rather
in
that
the
as a
and
explain
(pre-sequences)
discourse,
conclude
to
Furthermore,
appear
of
analysis,
insufficient
simply
and
because
arises
the
re-inforce
and speech
analysis
conversational
analysis
inconsistent
may thus
this
acts.
conversational
theory
in
acts
analysis
conversational
the
so much a theory
not
discourse
Although
to
serves
is
to
any relationship
only
analysis
compatible,
speech
indirect
This
pre-request.
conversational
are
bear
to
appear
even
observations.
theory
fails
not
blade
large
sequence: cutters? to
next
section
a
the
pesticides. is
only
made.
e. g.
B
(42) This it
is be
likely
A:
Could
to
the
of
the
that
the
co-operative a plan-based
if
request
you show me where
an example case
fulfil
a further
request
is
exactly? principle model
of (similar
Grice. to
Could the
one
-68-
described
in
section
explanation does
of
not
to
seem
that
case carried
stops
provides
no
at
used,
Must above.
do
some
plan of
models
a plan
is
It
important
and must
theory
and vice
speech
act
levels
of
has
little
or from
evident speech in has
Several only
some Chapter
act
in
them
and also
order to
build
and they
as
by
discourse also
are
several
has
and lines will
describes
find
failed of
of
with
questions although
it
structure
is
to
have
alleged
have in
explored
an attempt
form
also
compatible
unanswered
investigation
be
is
do so.
a more plausible
a logical
is
higher
apparently It
discourse
to
act of
At
theory
been
in
limitations
analysis,
has
is
speech
structure.
into it
in
the
analysis
an
However
structure.
discourse
discourse
it.
act
have
structure
structure
recognise
Could
to
order
with
speech
one
informative).
in
discourse
to
Allen's
describes
One)
discourse
conjunction
there
theory
Three to
indirect
of
contribute
that
in
although
these
of
also
covered
conversational
and
act
It
adequately
(be
action
many insights
questions
chapters. verbs
that
us with
speech
undermined
not
sequence
interesting,
Chapter
study
do with
although
weak
in
hierarchy, to
to
that
of
Finally,
provided
not
acts,
respect
study
theories.
theoretically
and
with
theory,
act
both
this
this
we must
nothing
are
above.
types
are
something
be studied
descriptive
the
given
the
usually
the
why
certain
are
this?
speech
versa,
theory
example
just
importance
the
recognising
the
in
from
of
explain
maxims
than
apparent
theory
is
sequence
does
(mentioned
pragmatic
adequate
it
not
X?
have
also
do more
model
does
It
formula:
that
system
Gricean
sequence
theory.
act
may
suitable
pre-request
ignored,
why
a
possibilities.
pre-sequences
questions
speech
to
the
as
with
pre-request
in
as as
However
recognition the
two
such
is
the it
I ask you to
described
AI
4 of
us
The
all
a hint
explanation
are
traditional
if
step
provide
explain
Furthermore
sometimes
pose
on here?
3 and
steps
(43)
going
because
out.
requests
could
adequately
hints,
explain
is
what
2.3)
to set
the
been
the
next
re-examine of
speech
primitives acts.
opened few speech for
-69-
3.
The Deconstruction
3.1
Act
Verbs
Introduction
In
Chapter
One
I described
theories
of
analysis
and
Having
examined
existing
a new theory
that
build
speech
possible
in
new theory, least
provide
description
of
agree
many
of
1.6
section
speech
acts.
It
first
point
speech the and
is
acts
does carefully direction
four
only
fit
of
fits
utterance world;
examine
was that
the
basis
In
an
any
fit
and
to
relate
should
the
to add
a direction content
propositional context. definition function
But
because operating
1.3)
it
the
the
illocution;
has fit
own
not
between
is the
we are
speech
as
to
examine
he
talks are
affairs
altered
to
four
and
where
the
in
the
fit
allow
where
a speech
act
content
to
act we the the
within problematic
somewhat act
of
a speech
word-to-context speech
the
direction
double
perhaps
and
propositional
about
previously,
a previous vague
acts
need
of
to
for
allow
theory
there
state
of
Searle's
why we
theory
account
word-to-world
occurred
considers the
fit:
If
such to
a rather
between
my
more detail.
does
and
that
world
fit.
of
only
I have
Searle's
Firstly,
existing
where
of
is
my
though
in
Searle's
clear
stating of
relates
this
make
states.
that
something
for
aspects
independently
of
for
least
take
in
these
nature
relational
direction
null
to
directions
content
types.
work even
with
relationship
theory
world-to-word,
propositional
in
order
(section
possible
problems
to
his
what
seven
a structural
for
at
Wierzbicka
do at to
my
verbs.
now time
discourse.
allow
I intend
approach
for
act
by
on this
they
problems
as they
verbs
because,
simply
the point
given
to
attempt
speech
draw
extent
sentential
of
of
not
is
largely
possibility units
act
act
is
verbs
descriptions
the
I listed
In
act
to
starting
speech
theory.
act
many of
different
verbs,
the
speech
examine
a large
now time
as the
discourse
at
speech
answer
acts
speech
of
to
is
categorising
act
all
similarities
The
to
to
speech
with
description
speech
of
will
it
hopefully
particular
I
and
don't
take
to
traditional
more
Two looked
relationship
will
account
Chapter
theories
a means of
An interesting (1987),
to
the
some of
and in
acts
its
I intend
posed.
of
Speech
of
be and
a type what
of that
-70-
propositional
content
in
sense
the
which
an important
plays
is
this
an account acts
(Gazdar
op.
problem
account
not
for
force the
Firstly
which
is
problems
it
why
problem with
I
scale.
be
perhaps tuple
Veken
factors
The
third
achievement. extra-linguistic
no acts
when as
we
several
but
an order
but if
point
of
the
speech
act
(1985)
and
viewed that
determine
component
that
of
is
the
illocutionary
The mode of
achievement
means of
underscoring
then
in
a
at
a
see
no
I
arguments
by
given of
of
linear
a acts
such
Searle
upon
is
illocutionary
and could
strength
the
to
except as
an amorphous
the
a
speech
force
is
of
no
computation
strength
point
hinting
regarded
no
nothing
Because
certain
of
see
principle
point,
degree
sort
in
have
tableaux the
some
I
answer,
also
be
the
utterance,
says
reason
illocutionary
therefore as
no
an
I
necessarily
into
it
that
another.
point,
previously
the
of
question
and
the
(section
illocutionary
the provide
fit
readily
is
with
another
act.
except
to
not out
to
a particular
hearer
of
incompatible
point
there
illocutionary
of
are
relate
point,
strength
pointed
better
of
one
components they
of
example,
the
should
do not
as permit der
of it
have
gives speech
a prediction,
seven
can
illocutionary
the
that
remark
as an example:
point
problem,
get
degree
the
it
other
uses
illocutionary
between with
of theory.
a
that
can be interpreted
illocutionary
or
For
to
relationship
is
form
act
the
illocutionary
the
only
problematical
account,
speech is
shouldn't.
sense
but
such
with
especially
the
examine
purpose the
is
of
idea
interacts
is
Searle's
on
relational
question
acts
and interpretation
as a question,
there
with
speech
sequencing
component
act
Gazdar
one
the
the
about
to
that
1.4).
of
as a promise.
why
notion
of
go home tomorrow.
need
see
theory
and world
This
acts.
example
to
An account
he states:
utterance
one surface
You will
We also
Van
word
may be interpreted
which
a
non-linguistic)
recognition.
recognition
a speech
speech
(1)
the
that
and
is
there
p. 65)
discourse.
accept
However,
world.
which
a necessary
cit.
how
of
different
is
act
a
of
the
the
linguistic
in
that
of
with
the
must
speech
a theory
speech
within
in
claiming
constitutes
The
(both
role
not
that
context
by Gazdar(1981)
given
I'm
in
represents
an
speech
act.
the
mode
grouping force
n-
of of of
-71-
an that
carries
force. it
For
utterance.
a mode
A command
is
this
testify
asserting
the
doing
something
When
someone
that
as
special
mode
concerned
the
I
that
example the
that
Furthermore, form;
that
conversation party
what
is
someone
the
alter they
is
it
are, effect
upon
point
to
something
be
being
(in
way
is
this
of
Because
worth speech
going
terms of
treated
category We
as
alter
the
surface
have
truth,
they their
of
neither
where fact
the
case
surface argue
both
then
the
that
does
not
forms)
in
that
cases,
special
as
request.
such
that
I
this,
cannot
testifying,
as
one
of
of
speech formal
as
identified
hearer
with
speaker
or
hearer
is
the position
where primary of
explain the
what
notion
of
formal
acts
speech
its
and
authority
acts
and
secondly
on to
investigating
speaker
the
The
should
before
(1982)
Berry
being
from
be
to
forms,
A transcript
manner.
the
surface
act.
the
with
acts.
However
and
a normal
is
say
ask
discourse
individuals
two to
about
something.
as testify
such
speech
say
significantly
or
am going and
count
acts
While
case
acts
speech
speech
not
actual
the
to
that
something
truth.
a special
indistinguishable
be
testifying
materially which
are
oath.
under
forms
where
in
would
was
acts
they
forming
different.
on
I
speech
but
acts,
requests
oath.
a formal
with
situation
is
relationship
call
does
a conversation
on
their as
can
as make
under
between as
somewhat
the
is
Authority
be
sworn
it
that
speech
something
being
indirect
we
a
consider
such
that
to
testifying
testified
things,
fact oath.
tell
will
and
achievement.
of
previously
they
testify
special
use
way
have
of
intend
I
to
act
authority
of
under
seems
asserting
consider
will act
speech
carry
do many
well
mode the
while
that
sacred
as
the
a speech illocutionary
of
achievement
testifying
relationship
structure,
is
an explanation
achievement
with
its
hence
in
of
that of
they
as
well
a position
as
its
of
from
something _or
as
we may
questions
for
of
be
to
out
as mode
testifies,
testifying,
and
has
command
as part
authority
important
hold
they
of
such
cites
achievement
carried
truth
be
to
appears
of
is
position
Similarly
Searle
example,
(at
least) to
respect in
either knower. authority
It can
must
of or
firstly
be
change
authority
hearer
between
relationships
authority:
a position speaker
two
is
realised depending
over in
the
either
the
other, of
position
straight upon
when
away the
that
subject.
-72-
For
example,
still B
if
even
give
an
order
has
certain
rights.
The
same
primary
knower
of
still
the
For
Thus
be
the
am
the
back
of
no distinct
act
speech
The have
no
can
which
formal
say.
However,
formal
acts.
Going
acts
using No-one
such is
distinct
going
to
hand
the
different
map onto
verb
testify
as
that
certain types
sentential
back
to
the but
assert
govern
category discourse be
might
will I
clearer
consider
to
of
the
added
of
formal
and
do
be
change structure.
the
to are
what
I move
on to the
outside
it
that
acts
is
are
or
define of
different
form I
relate
class
makes
surface When
that
speech
clearly
component
and
verbs
appear
Just as
offer
act
speech
or
between
for
of
testifying:
does not
is
resign.
become
idea
discourse
a set
baptise
relationship
there
to
appear
verbs
consider:
again
way
are
the
act
discourse
the
normal
that
acts
from that
in
An example
asserting,
different
in there
within
speech
speech
act
speech
them,
no possible
include
to
appear
those
from
other
acts.
other
to
other
I
called
verbs
are
up
what
ceremonies
The point
certain
to
act
any
like
would
is
There
acceptance,
that
element
relational
and
is
point
second
excommunicate. these
bound
act
On the
do with
to
nothing
shape
exactly
verbs
appear
form.
that
do.
others
whereas
have
verbs
act
a speech
surface
some
or excommunicate.
speech
and assert
to
distinction
acts
ritualised
baptise
is
subject.
are
this
speech
of
structures.
Furthermore,
types.
has
also
class
these
question
verbs:
sentence
that
that
To explain
not.
knower.
integrally
are
matter
conversation.
speech
involve
grammatical
separate
by making
example:
argue
seriously
acts:
Searle's
for
text,
the
The
experiences
knower
primary
that
those
a primary
to
respect
of
are
these
be
matter
those
violate
subject
personal
those
that
often
very
act
speech
those
consider
pre-determined
speech
subject
distinguish
to
from
declaratives:
denote
the
and
and determine
mean by this;
would
authority
my knee!
knower.
on the
their with
to
B could
from
primary
sometime
relating knower
formal
to
forms
is
of
an authority at
hand
A not
order
B,
over
your
position
can
primary
by
discourse
rules
be
attempting
surface
not
to
position
Going
to
assumed
Everyone
determined
extent
I
the
remove
can
and to
who
authority
Kindly
as:
applies
anyone
to
institutional
rights
is
example,
with
such
conversation.
assumed
I
A has
testify
testify or
the that
-73-
something
is
true,
(assuming
that
it
questions
and still
I
I am still is
they
that
have
in
certain
way be said
to
be testifying
beforehand
that
indirectly.
choice
of
acts
as testify
such
are
still
ordained
set
those
of
acts
and that
words
the
of
only
if
Although
I
have
intend
to
agree
achievement,
the
significance
when
some
type
of
extent
to
that
act
the
or
that
speech
cases.
There pre-
in
acts
an and
further.
of
a
it
are
aspect
of
use
utter
declarative
them
relational
a
play
idea
the
speak
structure
speech
cover
with
speech
considering
no
to
I
people The
between
relationship
known
use
baptism. role
is
the
that specific
very
achieve
and I do not
structure
as separate
any
altering
I argue
as baptise
in
not
grammatical
such
baptise
to
similar
understanding discourse
acts
it
I am not
be treated
requests.
I cannot
or
reasons,
answer
to
indirectly,
and
these
do we successfully
words
speech
speech
but
whether
act
For
should
other
indirectly
maxims
I still
responses
by testifying,
speech
form.
surface
of
by speaking
means that
between
relationship
range
testifying,
am
pragmatic
conversation).
ways assert
I
This
guide
a similar
can also
Grice's
obeying
mode
of
of
no
speech
acts.
fourth
The
component
propositional
content do
conditions problem be
of
has
already
taken
take
place.
In
speech
fifth
The conditions,
greatly provide
us
just
context,
to
consider then
such
the
of
as the
link
that
this
communicated
fulfilling
the
the
want
request
to the
hearer
preparatory
as they
in
of
can To
a request.
We
that (do)
to
can be seen
to
require.
we
part
promising I propose
promise.
want,
as
upon
that
consider a
he wants
fact
that
can be achieved,
as communicating
are
conditions
preparatory
relational
put
force
the
has yet
that
itself.
content
things
that
something
constraints
can fulfil
speaker
how this
hearer
are
thus include
conditions
predict
illocutionary
of
category
that
regard
they
the
solve
and should
on something
propositional
just
with
communicates then
the
extend
I cannot
the
content
us
significant content
report
words,
include the
are
that or
component
that
illustrate could
other
and
presupposes
fact
place,
by the
type
act
they
help
to
own right
Propositional
as the
such
their
however
further.
considered
constraints
in
is
force
Propositional
condition(s).
nothing
context,
illocutionary
of
speaker P.
the
If
we
overall
as responding
to
-74-
that
In
want.
original
this
and the
request,
acts
are
related
via
is
and coming
sixth
sincerity
different
He spoke
in
of
terms
procedure
this
in
applied
incorrectly.
they
is
lead
must
two
between
two
speech
be developed
for
sincerity
be
acts
in
this
for
conditions
application
Gricean
of
in
of
a total
Searle
that
fact
an explanation
acts
such
maxims
(see
Leech
how we
to
all
speech
acts
that
apply
the
acts,
and act
can
speech
use acts
conditions are Searle's
can
be
and
are
misapplied
for
1983
but
speech
of
they
assert
as
If
sincerity
feel
I
to
speech
apply
the
where
exists
chose
explanation
that
out
misexecutions,
theory.
Although
at
it
conventional
conditions
examined
1962, p. 17)
and
act
of
performatives.
where
speech
acts, In
acts.
to
consists
pointing
purported,
lies.
to
performative
speech
worth
(Austin
more
be
should
However
sincerity apply
force
an examination
manner
a gap
to
if
surely
important
the
to
supposed then
other
the
and
"preparatory
misapplications,
conditions
to
seems
language,
to
applied
sincerity
theory
the
of
will
is
misinvocations,
exist,
is
it
from
came
may not be
of
between
notion
conditions
Firstly,
idea
idea
up
request
illocutionary
of
levels.
original
it
that
something
Sincerity
Austin's
where
relationship
component
conditions.
cannot
that
set
chapters.
The
two
is
The
context.
possible
a common context
to
response
the
via
and the
conditions"
link
way a relational
idea
of
furnished
by Chapter
also
Six).
The
explanation
capable
of
without
it
the
including
that
strength
of
speech
hearer
true
believe
condition
force,
then
can be measured illustrate
this beg
it
a
does
not
on a linear point:
having
with
request.
Similarly
assert
a stronger
sincerity
request a stronger and testify condition
someone the
-P with
is
the
even
if
force However,
be
of
-P.
illocutionary
condition.
lie
constituents
that
and stating
that
sincerity
together
having
P is
of
sincerity
a
that
a
involves
a lie
be
will
telling
the
one of
of
propose
someone
Telling
acts.
component
the
illocutionary
Searle
the
final
The
strength"
of
I will
of
possibility
a requirement
or believing
intention
that
the
violating
description
knowing
of
constituent follow
that
and beg are sincerity
than
paired assert.
of
accept
we
of
component the
"degree
The examples
scale.
are
degree
often
used by paired than
condition with
of
testify
However
the
-75-
facts
that
those
make beg
that In
speech
make testify
I have
acts,
illocutionary
force
the
relational
can be seen as an attempt from
to
problem
concerns
on
one
the
of
the
illocutionary the
mode
illocutionary
point have
scale.
I
further
problem
is
in
sentential by
expressed
possible
explanation
conversational of
a speech
of
discourse
than
description.
I
My
the
has the
himself
the
to
proved
notion
entailment
of
be
sound
primitive
emphasis
proposition level
as
discourse,
The
problem
unit Searle's
extreme
an and
acts, with it
on
was placed
placing
against speech
as
example
an level
Searle
that
rules
such
took
This
is
essentially
below.
much
of
A
above.
to
too
warned
so
a higher
detail
in
linear
units
argue
the
of
of
according
acts.
content
one
more
acts
in
a
units
with
advice. speech
is
cited
relations
simplistic,
are
level
presented had
of
is
in
speech
tableaux
Austin upon
reliance
and
between
semantic
levels
acts
argue
components
on a simple
to
higher
speech
touched
strength
presented
compatible
was that
criticism
Veken(1985).
this
are:
relations
in
more
of
content
lower
section
propositional
why this
originally
describe
will
third
entailment form
is
that
act
how
already
too
or
restriction
or I
exchanges.
acts
this of
markers,
embraces
in
the
of
the
reasons
their
since
discourse
as
speech
and
upon
describing
have
be measured
the
a sentence,
some
and
surely some
basis,
build
given
I
degree
given
that
from
that
time
amorphous
the
already
elicit
a link
to
acts
approach
that
achievement
cannot
speech
approach.
too
Additionally,
conditions.
to
speaker
provide
same
Searle's
either
of
for
request
structure.
namely
are
a
I intend
of the
at
its
of
problems, force
particular
of
rigidity
that
to
ones,
while
criticism
be construed
could
a context.
via
discourse
to
relate second
1.6
another
a new theory
present
conclusions:
by the
may be used
following
and the
relational acts
to
of
hearer.
the
conditions act
act
sense
between
components
following
the
in
ideas
such
come to
from
relations
constituent
way,
a
chapter
a
seven
different
are
of
in
The
out
the
examined
question
a speech
this
speech
assert.
of
one speech
the
than
point
Preparatory
these
request
the
examine
and have
a response
In
than
The illocutionary
example
ii)
stronger
to
attempting
i)
"stronger"
falls
der
Van too and
much I
feel
entailment down
for
-76-
certain
speech
acts,
such
class,
and is
almost
absent
expressives
to
in
and declaratives types
other
of
speech
the
This
of
or that
the
of
speech
directive
acts,
namely
that
suggests
be treated
should acts,
case
two classes
declaratives.
and
expressives
in
as permit
in
either
a different
entailment
way
be played
should
down. fourth
My theory
indirect
of important
the
speech
acts
are
a better
as
something
speech
has
been
hope
to
be
are
used
fifth
into
theory.
his
sixth
it use
it
theory
is
I
of
(albeit
of
indirect
be
able
than
way to
to
Searle I
present,
indirect
why
even
provide
exist
must
am about
of
speech
acts
and
uses
politeness
surface
language
the
existing
theory
us
leads
however
a description an
of
that
us
any
to
as
we deliver it
is
which
is
what
which
the
saying
speech
nothing
pragmatic
we can
much accounts
correct, which
language act
speech this
a
or
way
acts
speech
several
particular
an
using
we
problem.
use
in
I
what
If
within act
attempt
an
immediate
sentences
context
it
in
language.
of
integrate
is
ways
an
how we put
a particular
then
in
we may use
account in
how,
ways
he
in
theory
the
into
to
although
concerns
act of
us
account
atomistic
tell
speech
account
an
made
politeness
If
with
is
attempt
that
include
abstraction".
community, form,
of
is
approach
no
acts.
This
only
or
passing,
speech
surely
way,
Searle's
will
without
language
to
theory
notions
My theory
provide
merely
together,
of
the
not to
theory
any
convincing
an account
of
in
language.
can
that
In
acts
seriously, more
is
appears
speech and
taken
a far
provide
of
must
is
then
in
criticism
"levels
it
theory)
be
to
far.
so
indirect
explain The
If
is
criticism
politeness
can
that
indirect
acts
analysis
indirect
incorporates
mentions
then
in
to
able
speech
the indeed
explained,
circumstances,
direct
why
that
maxims.
My
called
of
which
pragmatic
to
account
account to
able
certain
over
is
properly
conversational
that that
challenge
description
not
in
why
preferred
else
acts
is
acts
of
Currently,
with
Searle's
of
speech
question
addressed. us
criticism
appropriate
about
the
performance
of
language
set
out
explain. What
describe further
act
speech the
with
relations what
is
theory between
intentions
attempting
a proposition that
utterance
to and
achieve an utterance,
was made.
This
is
to and
implies
-77-
that
it
be
must
derived
from to
able
the
say
expressed
in
intermediate thought
be
between
form the with
utterance
is
I
the
how
to
In
to
a look
take
at the
examining exactly
what
1.
Illocutionary
My
description
the
notion
of
2.
degree
be
that more
dimensional
of
this
one
could
be
thought
only
linear
act
question.
act
and
Bach
and
process, my theory
intermediate
some
frame
to
used
an
theory
act
In
the
final
utterance,
expresses
precisely
the
that
Before
this.
is
is
there
to
proceeding it
verbs,
illocutionary
is
worth
force
re-
to
see
is
the
or
point
a "presumed setting
I
have
no
the
of
effect"
is
speaker
purpose
is
which to
out
a by
achieve
the
to
objections
real
act.
point.
strength lie to
the
as
a point
think
as
it
a linear
as
words
it
is
not
usually
would
"stronger"
having
relationships
on
the be
rather
much
very be
another. same
sort
trivial,
might
in
area
the
reject it
scale,
adjacent
than
broadly would
an
I
point.
it
of
other
as being
illocutionary
of
Hence
of
reverse
acknowledge
of
This
In
of
the
be
lies
left.
in
measure.
involved.
that
freely
components
the
appropriate
speech is
must
that
force
is
description
speech
what
should
that
producing
for
illocutionary
an
think
The
before
include
hypercube.
space
can
I
it
therefore,
an utterance.
this
will
act
act
about
that
Point.
of
uttering
view
be
a speech
what
there
specific
Obviously,
traditional
that
seven will
description
The
some
the
illocutionary
from
justification
psychological
between
proposition
and
an
somewhere
the
But
Although
with
is
something
of
us
view
a priori
form
say.
proposition
say
happens
words,
some
a
to
extracted
and
other
together we want
no
assume
be
must
we want
of
this.
say is
act
level
utterance.
what
however
it
what
components from
is
an utterance, of
how this
a speech
descriptive
we put
other
about
intend
isn't
traditional
produced
(1979)
Harnish i. e.
The
from
providing
utterance.
description
of
nothing
it
is that
final
and
two.
grouped
says
description,
a thought
some
it
this,
the
is
Hence
get
we
utterance
an utterance.
doing
and
intentions.
how
about
how the
about
the
and
to
level
be
something
proposition
a thought
as
original
say
something
However
cannot
to
able
an
n-
multi-
a
to
appropriate But of
two
acts
purpose. such
as
a
-78-
between:
comparison (2)
I am angry.
and (3)
3.
The
do
away
1 am very,
Mode
of
with
completely.
achievement be
achievement.
can
classified
oath, leading
parties
4.
Propositional
in
the
predict
condition
will
Preparatory
will
be
fact
of
the
greatly but
have
to
sincerity to
say
evidence conditions.
an rite
I
to
explain
we should
have
maxims
to
appeal conditions. what
then
the
we believe
of
appears
be
drop
these
have
be
a
degree to
of
to
but
can
example
that
when
we only
to
derive
exhorts
we have have
use
And
quantity
to
that
acts,
we assert.
need
strength
We
For
what
and
idea
the
speech
a maxim
and no
condition
completely,
acts.
and
quality
to
include
states".
the
what
true
Modus
of
restricted
conditions.
we already to
be
speech
for
evidence
law
a preparatory
"formal"
sincerity
maxims
there
for
remain
be able
also
will
objections
no
I
that
for.
component, have
will
content
the
"cognitive
communicative
If
for
not
to
I
fact
the
I will
of
will
propose
seventh
in
for,
are
"come out
example,
apologize
include
I
place
only
can
the
-
propositional
apologize of
also
should
the
description.
and
conditions.
no
asserting,
or
of
swearing
will
by necessity,
The notion
will
for
I can apologize
what
the
conditions
pragmatic
mode
that
works"
these
of
predict
hence
description
Conditions.
have
they
called
as
to
propose
those
his
all
I
way
such
Most of
the
enhanced
sincerity
sincerity
and
I cannot
that
exactly
implication
by
ritual,
include
Conditions.
Sincerity
hence
formal "Satan
into
my
presuppositions
6.
i. e.,
event,
be built
of
5.
acts,
will
a future
the
description
a so
speech
Conditions.
that
because
Ponens,
include
an alternative
In my description
components
explain
that
of
Content
can only
to
acts
that
a component
in
renouncing
wash".
include
is
explained
"formal" sort
This
baptism.
to
up
be
some
with or
Any
either as
associated
angry.
very
adequate sincerity
us
-79-
3.2
Speech
Acts
As Schemas
My definition have
to
needs
of
a speech
thought that
communicating
act, It
make an act).
is
to
be communicated
what describe make
those sense
making have
to in I
is
consist
of
P as
that enable
surface
form
maxims
that My
way.
the
effect
will
be
the
P and
choice
interact
me to also
will
do
I
of
by
the
be based
some
or
to
make
believe
that
action
will
asserting
knowledge
will
hearer
using
various
my
appropriate pragmatic
in
hearer
to
certain
a
as
such
considerations
on
will
possibility
most
the
with
the
on the
this
have
hearer
the
type
acts.
I
In
for
given decide
to
my assertion.
direct
this
responses have
I
true.
be prepared
to
to The
that
in
component
speech
true,
hearer.
will
needs
these
of
want
P is
it
act.
common
also
the
after
surface
presumably
that
believe
speech
to
order
appropriate
some
will
receive
speaker
each
belief
have
know in
the
in
I may
i. e. it
Finally,
P may be
to
action,
act.
the
assertion, that
the
to
of
the
not
decode
for
an
preconditions
to
most
of
interest
of
I
Finally,
assertion.
the
required
true.
but may
to
me
is
believe
that
true,
hearer
the
is
communicating
something,
into
act
P is
that
hope
that
utterance
Further
likely
speech
strategies
make
me to
that
I
accept
to
order
something
the
speaker
the
act.
needs
he is
description
rough
believe
hearer
the
speaker
that
of
what
leads
that
evidence
it
in
example,
speech
the
what
make an
define
a representation
utter
a very
using
the
speech
illustrate
will
parts
to
order
a set
the
convert
that
to
roughly, also
by the
communicating it
to
will
responses
an utterance
order
For
the
of
attached
form
things
deciding
(very
speech
to
encompass
will
before
about
necessary
act
politeness.
In
the act
a speech the
what
speech is
act
type
of
to
supposed
the
speaker
the
possible
of
strategies
to
know,
believe
of
I will
develop
I will
also
describe
what
i. e.
achieve, the
needs
produce
what
schema will
to
know in
to
the the
correct
it
contain
order
speech
in
etc.
act.
responses to
chapter,
speech
Additionally,
develop
I will
as a schema consisting
needs
types.
act
hearer. what
description
speaker
particular
of
remainder
this
to
act. surface
is
idea
the
descriptions order
to
schemas
for
is
it
of
that
of
several
the
speech to
communicating
the
some descriptions
form
develop in
of
interpret
successfully I will
a
make
the
Chapter
idea Six.
-80-
Schemas have in
Artificial
of
Intelligence
They
uttered. the
speech
be
act
for
necessary
have
to
presumed
as an utterance,
or may
and then
go on to
speech
how the
be
to
the
effect Finally, is
act
perhaps
describe
I
first of
a set
act
speech
will
and
of
hearer.
some descriptions
give
is
which
and hearer.
speaker
acts,
consist
on the
may specify
of
speech
the
an effect,
which
knowledge
assert,
is
represent
and generally
include
a body,
realised
mutual
are
also
act
may include
they to
will
to
models,
that
preconditions
that
been used
already
some examine
other
speech
verbs. is
Assert
discussed Searle
Harnish.
and
models
describes
Allen
Searle
der
Veken in
been
used
acts
including
speech
using
both
Van
and
has
It
act.
assertive
by
in
assert
terms
and
Van
use
it
Allen's the
Veken
Bach
and
their
as
primitive
Artificial
several
of
der
Intelligence (Allen
model
1983).
schema:
INFORM (S, H, P) precondition:
know(S,
P)
effect:
know(H,
P)
body:
MB(H, S, (want
is
Assert
the that
precondition knows
hearer
act
mutual
belief
hearer
to
P is
that
hearer
know
is
act
speech
Holdcroft this
body
The
communicative
that
the
speaker
used
for. Smith
include
H, discourse-context,
precondition:
bel(S,
that
both
propose
is
act speaker
is
a
(see
the
act
the wants
sort
understand
a slight
that
of
end
of
what
the
to
modification
context: P)
P)
not-committed(S, committed(S,
effects:
know
the
with effect
speech
this
hearer
a discourse
INFORM(S,
of
the
and
the
of
P
of
presumption
and
(1990)
true
both
speaker
the
and to
schema
P.
body
The
and
hearer
P is
that
true.
that of
chapter)
knows
speaker
H P)))
informing
speaker
that
representation this
of
S (know
discourse-context,
P)
discourse-context,
P)
bel (H, P) In to
this
description
believe
and
the
discourse
particular committed
of
to
P to
being
the
assert,
rather
schema includes context
the
committed
P.
know is
fact
that
changes
from
the
speaker to
strong
changed within
being
a not
-81-
Bach
and Harnish in
Another
the
belief
ii)
the
intention
verbs
of
the
it
study, that
I
of
(above)
has
is
it
that
is
neutral
For
illustrate in
not
itself
going
on
other
parts
force.
conditions,
to
that
assert
Perhaps
instead
assertion
to bel(S
the
hearer
that
the
as
of
aware it
P))).
was
(1987)). i. e.
for
come
to
this
is
I
that
to
the
to
it
for
the
purposes
illocutionary
P is
true.
in
P.
that
it
relate point
to
the is
the
in
the
true.
as:
want(S I
is
questionable is
P
(Allen
was
used
the
want
assert
of
true fully
it
because
for,
Allen
illocutionary that
an
of
spirit P
be
order
is
P
defended
was
does
to
that
that
but
to
Before
appear
again
is
it
more
illocutionary
of
effect
believing
schema,
be
an assertion,
is
that
more
relate
that
The
use
a
and
to
about
this
to
force.
in
out
order
uttering
believe
making
into
his
to
of
belief
asserted
appear
in
speak
be more
true,
forced
formulating
intend
questionable
or
believe
P is
been
I
by
ruled
perhaps
components
speaker's words,
be
act
Allen
inform
hence
attempting
is
would
that
be
preconditions
it
I
to
illocutionary
the
P)
that
has
the
use
know
other
effects
assert,
will
to
the
cannot it
I
by
using
act,
would
need
bel(S
that
speak
of
however
knows
when
The
be
followed
with has
and
inform
worthwhile
schema
header
problem
verb
preconditions:
believe
adequate
know
it
In
because
simply
components
represent
hearer
the
any
P,
hearer
at to
need
given
an utterance
or
relates
of
to
of
merely
the
preparatory
act of
ratter
Allen
the
of
looking
above
of
The
description
further
Firstly
bel(H
as
carry any
further
description
the
assert
sort
a body.
a speech
my
it
that
her
meaning
merit
before
given
of
interpretation
such
appropriate.
from
However
a
a representation
verb
the
to
of
with
encapsulate
removed
schemas
as
and
itself The
is
far
description
H, P)
effects
a primitive.
to
uses
(op.
number
totally
agree
interesting
the
INFORM(S,
inform
she
employ.
the
all,
preconditions,
do not
Wierzbicka a large
analysed
I
that
all
is
P. "
detail.
more
First
for
not
that
assert
sufficiently
eventually
in
that
is
description,
explained
H believe
described
although
S expresses:
P and that
that
also
shall
Wierzbicka's
is
and
verbs
is
that
as: P iff
that
"semantically"
description
the
each
has
who
assert
S asserts
e,
Wierzbicka
act
analysis
describe
i)
author
speech
of
uttering
p. 321).
cit.
(op. cit)
hearer
point, should
-82-
This in
discussion
terms
three
of
i)
has
communicative
is
to
part in
statement
that
the
directed
at
know,
want
speech
act.
The
a speech
act
the
For
utterance. is
speaker
it
assert to
going
hearer
the
information
what
with
is
make
an
propositional
P.
The preconditions
iii)
specifies
which
-
provided
content
ii)
of
parts:
be
utterance
a description
to
us
component
The
a
led
or believe
effect
specify
- which
is
which
-
in
to
order
speaker
successfully
desired
the
the
what
result
of
that
will
should the
utter
the
speech
act. The
communicative the
select
is
form
be).
will to
refer
P).
assert
The
the
of
acts.
result
of
The
this
is
I say:
2)
I imagine
3)
I can say that
4)
I assume that
5)
1 say this
is
in that
the the
conscious I
surface
be
will
explored indirect
of
desires
will
happen
to
as
to
the
look
Wierzbicka's
at
description.
above
p. 321)
(op. cit.
by Wierzbicka
is
this
would is
people
because
the
not
true.
that
it
true. have
will I want
outline
is
say this
to
form
to
think
say what
of
the
is
I know is
utterance
true.
true.
action:
H P)
to
[Ex: words
there
of
given
some people
to
possible
other
in
a
problem
speaker
shall
X
equivalent
bel(S
I
eventual
that
the
useful
light
the
that
act.
perhaps
assert
of
1)
SPEAK(S
It
in
assert
The meaning
is
the
something
the
surface
therefore,
affect
consider
what
speech
it
point
of
is
the
is
this on to
come
effect
uttering
definition
1)
I
when
speech
At
but
the
constitutes is
and also
stressed
be present
this
that
... can
states
that
utterance here
believe
preconditions
utterance,
fully
the
of
to
used
be
what
should
which
claiming I
to:
similar
process
states",
am not
a set
are
be
should
determines
that
making
it
(however
preconditions
before
(I
act
speech
more
The
mind
form thing
only
"cognitive
as
speaker's
form
the
not
information
provides
surface
correct
it
that
part
are
translate
bel(x
2)
as
-P)])
I am stating some people
this
as the
who might
belief
believe
held that
by the P is
not
speaker true.
a
-83-
The third
condition:
I can
say that
could
be represented
bel(S
P) or bel(S
This
(Given
want(S
bel(H
+bel(S
P)
with
instead
to
represent
In
hearer
it
it
contradicts
I
want(S
This is
may wish
reason
to
assert
ultimately,
becomes
he wants it
we compare
speaker Hence
this
to
say
want bel(S
is
true.
the
speaker
may be for
wants
about
P.
whatever the
why the
the
speaker it
directive the
to
as
is,
reason of
something this
that
asserts
simply P
that if
makes more sense
categories
or get
speaker
such
that
P
that
assert
hearer
a danger
However
make a
know something
(S INFORM(H
people
true.
to of
is
(Searlean)
of
speech
speech
hearer
to
act,
act. the
do something.
be:
then
might
is
know
wants
inform
to
there
that
to
then
some
many reasons,
but
that
other
true"
is:
condition I
the
condition
is
imagine
I
simplification
a great which
it
that
what
that
possible
x)]))
why the
assert
condition
want
final
definition,
when
wants
The
Of course,
to
to
and prefer
original
that
condition
speaker
with
example,
is
believe
to
a conversation,
a circular
because
For
P,
in.
he believes
that
course
off" the
it
Wierzbicka's
have
I
as the of
it
we leave
true.
not
[Ex:
is
that
that
previous
is
It
conditions
believes
will
because
"start
simply
If
INFORM(H
serves true.
P.
the
this
say
as:
P)))
people
it
Wierzbicka's
of
may believe
speaker
that
that
say
will
be represented
could
as:
believe
assume
as:
as:
people
words
"I
be more accurate
might
which
fourth
poss(bel(H
will
P)))
the
represented
other
this
above,
I assume that
bel(S
as
).
issue
is
simply
bel(S
I take
which
true.
poss (P) )
discussion
the
is
this
S P))
or want In
the
(S do (H P))
case want(S
In will
other
of
commissives
INFORM(S
words,
.
the
it
might
H will(do(S
speaker
be:
P))).
wants
to
inform
the
hearer
that
he
do P. Wierzbicka
has
chosen
to
represent
assert
with
some
quite
-84-
complex
statements
relatively
simple
preconditions
true.
was
description
P was But
by
something
I merely
we have
some
likely
fact
that
to
believe
had
forms
that
if
I
appear
of
was
entirely
our to
wanted
or
know
to
be
hearer
the
response
the
given Previously,
above.
the
of
then
the
about
explanation
Allen
solely
true now
further
need
consisted
that
assert
that
P
that saying
to
the
with
the
assertion. Wierzbicka's outline is
then
the
sense
wanting
the
will
does
not
as
me to
part
precondition
need
much
effect
of
the
by
given
further
poss (bel (H P)))
bel(H
P) it
asserts
that
is
explanation not
clear
but
I will
to
it
all of
Action:
Cognitive
of
this
if
words
is
I P
that
assert
Hence so
much
important
an
in
keeping
with
and
so
should
not
of
version
interpretation
that
the
that
is
necessary
because
simply believe
made the
together effect
SPEAK(S
that
speaker 5)
is
an
though
it
is
P.
utterance,
of
as a component
we can and
set
of
now
arrive
cognitive
at
1) bel(S
[Ex:
4)
-P)])
P) poss (bel (H P)) )
want(S
bel(H
bel(x
P)
INFORM(H
[Ex:
bel(S
a
states:
H P)
3) bel(S
Effect:
a modified
has to
2) +bel(S
Presumed
is
for
is
3)
4)
in
responses.
2)
schema
the
other
utterance
that
assert.
fits
speaker
I
P
assert
anyway.
an action,
States:
the
his
suggest
speaker
this
me that
the
in
prefer
hearer
the
why the
include
Putting consisting
P that
purpose
that
to
to
absurd
of
of
Allen
I
act.
speech
feel
I
explanation.
bel(S
because
this
a description
of
its
agree
accurately,
the
of to
responses
of
more
me when
assert
not
(or
In
sense
I
will
preparing
make
readily
Because
but
with
if
asserting
expectations.
disagree
possible
them.
of
with
will
constrain
explain
in
fit
people
help
constituent the
don't
above
is
P)
statement
for P
that
that
second
that
says
precondition
believe
to
her
some people
believing
or
outlined
some
it
then 2)
that
a necessary
hearer
2)
that
expect
knowing
that
that
responses know
not
idea
the
with
is
This
me.
to
consistent
however
Allen,
Statement
new.
have
I
by
used
totally
something
with
statement
form
utterance
something
in
first
x)]))
schema
-85-
Note
that
presumed
I
have
effect
is
The
act.
that
the
only
response
may
know
P already.
a
speech
theoretical
P is
possible.
The
hearer
If
have
we will from
the
by
the
of
be
the
believe
to
is
not
that
P
or to the
stealing
analysis
preferred
him
responses
to
way
speech
this
possible
a long
The
for
However,
may not
gone
terms
achieve would
conversational
in
talks
which
to
true.
formalise
we can
effect".
hearer
the
that
ground
discourse,
by
he believes
then
act,
hopes
speaker
response
"presumed
the
effect
the
what
preferred
acknowledge
the
called
to
approach dispreferred
and
responses. description
The
throws
states relationship the
light
some of
speech
in
to
speaker In
act.
accurately
the
case
challenging
and
major
an
a possible
cognitive
firstly and
theory.
likely
those
of
problems:
act
make
the
terms
structure,
speech to
order
assert,
P,
of
of
predict of
in
act
discourse
to
issues
represented
speech
on two
acts
representational
states
the
of
secondly,
The
assertion
are
statement
that
cognitive the
enable to
responses
responses
the
the
speech
acceptance P
P,
of already
was
known. In five
the
speech
terms
of
act
from
three
each
above
I
chapter of
some
of
which
Searlean
the
analysis
hope
four
There
to
or in
categories
assert.
of I
describe
shall
are in
explore
many
the
next
chapters. Chapter
Four (or
preconditions the
explain take
assert
as
react
hearer
may
not
very
to
not
speech
the
preconditions
In
other
little
to
constrain
raise
in
Chapter i. e.
speaker
to
the
also
P and
that
good in
cohesive the
words what Four
states predict
that
relate
possible
way
acts
in
discourse.
in
addition
to
explain
how
that
in
of after.
possible to
in
example is
this
any
responses
to
an
speech by
the
we
being the
for it
because
speech
other does
of act
If
prepared
issues
existence
or
the
assertion
Other
direct
assert,
respect
terms
relational
come the
some
speaker
example
utterance
must are
the
the
that
in
states For
utterance.
a very
strongly
acts.
states",
between
idea
the
on can
states)
are
believe
is
Assert not
cognitive
preconditions may
expand
will
an example;
hearer
this.
I
relationships
necessary
the
the
questions,
In
is
verbs to
similar
unanswered
this
remainder
that hearer.
very I
that
will
"universal also
allow
A simple
-86-
example the
which to
the
has the
which not
in
generation be
cognitive
acts
in
Chapter
Six.
of
speech
to
explain
forms, based
based
the
epistemic
operators
been
have
I
that
deontic further
I is
have
followed
is
logic). in
used by its
of
surface logic"
It
also
will of
surface will
be
section
to
acts
used
deontic
I Chapter
(see
will
in
operators
the
permission
Hilpinen
(1971)
the
use
universal with
used
the
modal
to
modal
logic
(1968).
p for
examine
has
along
introduction
and Cresswell
obligation,
forbidden
and
also
used
logic
Belief
places
I have
have
I
used.
certain
a simple
and Hughes
next
Existential
operators. For
the
and know.
want
in
in
syntax
(1985).
used
and necc.
0 for
something
logic
as bel,
been
also
descriptions,
attempt
"pragmatic
speech
used
and the
by Konolige
(1981)
McCawley
stone,
will
generation
indirect
show
in
it
operators.
operators
acts
propositional poss
of
also
cast
of
on the
effects
on the
such
have
operators
deontic
explored
speech
will
generation
a sort
the
of
maxims.
formalised
traditional
its
explanation
speech
quantifiers
of
the
evolve
and
It
rigidly
the
specified
be
Additionally affect
stated
indirect
of
above.
as
some
will
I
which
action
so do
this
not
variation.
to
style
the
an explanation
maxims
and
a note
describe
see
some
modal
on politeness
Finally
but
are
attempt
of
form,
descriptions
involved
are
However,
does
act
description
act
literary
and
speech
The method
factors
only
act
will
Much
not
given
politeness
forms.
in
way
may object
the
speech
thesis.
descriptions
on epistemic,
consider
that surface
how pragmatic
and
the
the
may be
there
utterance.
including of
include
the
other
preconditions,
will
that
the
several
scope
the
effect of
from
form
show
or
terms
that
the
to
the
derived
surface
states
in
and
the
hearer
the
e. g.
form
surface
because
affect
Six
the
like
may not
utterance,
explore
is
the
Chapter
that
will
beyond
schema
further
the
hope
I
the
upon
of
previously, in
I
complete,
to
consider
the
Five
utterance
be
will
hearer
the
shouting.
Chapter
description by
issues
speaker
speaker
In
may be that
this
of
of
state
cognitive and for
modal
f
to
denote
a description and
deontic
Four.
a notation parameters
in
which
enclosed
an operator in
(in
parentheses,
lower e. g.,
case)
-87-
bel(S
P)
necc(P) These
left off
or
SPEAK(S
speech
I
3.3
bel(x
the
its
the
last
names
speaker
been
the
schematic
P.
operator
name
it
and
is
parameter. are
in
used
upper
case,
e. g.
produces in
enclosed
form
a surface brackets
in
expressing describe
to
order
use of
the
various
use of
the
formulae
in
operators
Chapter
and
Four.
Speech Acts
Assertive
of
logical
Claim
Searle be
may are Claim
in
treated
and
conditions
given
by
1)
I
say:
2)
I
imagine
3)
I
think
4)
I
think
is
right.
I
say
1)
as
before,
2)
is
also
bel(S The
third
in
making say
them
making
cit.
claim
however
there
need
to
but
it
back
be
explored.
is is
a claim
to
evidence (op.
Wierzbicka
that
assert,
in
has
assert,
as
that
state
a
more
expecting
the
claim.
not
true.
say
that
this
people
to
think
up
p. 324)
are:
this
is
The
X that that
I
that
is can
I
some
people
have
good
can
because
this
it
that
way
like
speaker
(presumably)
opposition
same
view,
the
p. 183)
cit.
between
some
because
act
5)
the
exactly
forward
(op.
Veken
differences
puts
forceful
der
Van
and
significant
could
that
P)]
A description
3.3.1
case
e. g.,
examine
discuss
follows
act
the
have
scope,
will
P.
H P)
P. Quantifiers
[Ex:
the
necessarily
that
nested:
end of
means that
their
is
always
the
at
Action
which
believes
speaker
(S P) )
parenthesis
closed
it
may be
operators
the
that
means
necc(bel A
that
means
to
reason
cause
I
say
will
to
have
cause
other
people
to
want
this.
say
to
right. be
represented
as
SPEAK(S
H P).
as before:
[Ex:
bel(x
condition a claim, that
the
-P)]) concerns the
the
speaker
speaker
knows
evidence has of
for
evidence some
making to
Q from
the
claim.
support which
it
If
it,
we
could
be
-88-
inferred
that
speaker
believes
following
A slightly that
logical
bel(S 4)
is
of
making
[EQ:
people
know(S of
the
desire
to
represented
inferred
this
of from
be
would
Q.
This
that
the the
suggests
(Q ->P))]) believes
speaker
In making however that
from P.
hearer
the 2)
condition
as a result
bel(H
effect believe
I know that
5)
P).
P is
that
believe
to
Hence 4) can be looked
hearer
make the
happen
will
I want
a claim
perlocutionary
some
upon as
is
a
a statement and can be
true
as:
want (S bel(H So to
what
believe
not of
statement
be
case
Q) & bel(S
be true,
will
the
P can
a claim.
P will
weaker
form:
a statement
that
of
P.
summarise
P)) in
claim
Action:
SPEAK(S
Cognitive
form:
schema
H P)
States:
1) bel(S
[Ex:
2) bel(S
[EQ: know(S
bel(x
-P)]) Q) &
(Q -> P))])
bel(S
3) want (S bel (H P) ) Presumed
One
the
of
bel(H
Effect:
main
differences
evidence
to
support
the
come
no surprise
to
as
Condition
2)
inference
that
3.3.2
in
content
Wierzbicka
Because
of
condition
speaker
that
the
hearer
the
to
used
from with
concerned
hearer
the
world
that the
existence
claim
derive
1)
of it
the will
may
be
disputed.
Q
or
even
the
assure
as:
may dispute P from
etc. or
(op.
the
of
the
Q.
),
accuracy
describe
intention
of
truth
the
also
the
propositional
concerned
hearer.
contrasted
additionally of
of
of
utterance.
is
assure
(as
p. 184)
cit.
perlocutionary
of
mind
people
reports truth
the
the
states
"worry"
the
claim.
Veken
with
convincing
of
the
speaker
and Van der
asserting
confirm
is
that
means the
assert
with
Assure
Searle
of
P)
something.
Assuring with assure
confirm, means
with is
the
removal
specifically where
assuring
one
can
someone
-89-
The conditions 1)
I assume that
2)
I assume that
3)
I think
4)
I say:
5)
I say this
thing
that
that it
3)
is
effect
hence
is
the
this
on
is
true.
be sure
that
the
true.
1):
condition
is
hearer
the
the
thinking
infers
speaker
firstly
about
by some process it
like
be
to
true.
as
(S bel(H
whole
3)
P.
I
indicates P is
whether
speech to
in
refers that
have
the
chosen
wants
hearer
to
for
the
speech
act.
that
the
true.
Hence we can
speaker
act
cause to
verb,
i. e.
you to
believe
the
presumed
speaker to
believe
this
It
P.
that be
can
it
that
effect. to
wants
simplify
by assuring
the
cause
In
fact
the
to
it
a sense as:
represented
P))
schema
for
States:
Cognitive
the
the
SPEAK(S
Action:
of
from
a justification
So the
it
you to
P and would
about
condition
believe
speaker
want
is
the
I am attempting
something
follows
that
true.
as:
desired
to
is that
cause
to
may doubt
hearer
the
to
1) and simply
with
the
hearer
you would
P)))
poss(-P)))
true,
5)
thinking
bel(H
of
you
be sure
that
context,
bel(S is
it
sure
elements
bel(H
want(H
represent
if
speaker
the
is
connected
believes
not
that
SPEAK(S H P)
can be represented
is
2)
something
be true
to
important
hearer
bel(S
of
I want
want
simply
comes from
it
Hence
are:
thinking
you to
because
made by the
the
assure
X
two
assumption
that
I can cause
is
are
This
you are
you would
4) as before There
you are
for
be true.
to
want
P.
by Wierzbicka
given
is:
assure
H P)
1) bel(S
want(H
2) bel(S
bel(H
bel(H
P)))
poss(-P)))
3) want (S bel (H P) ) Presumed
the
As the (the
other
bel(H
presumed
effect
possibilities belief
speaker's in
interest belief
Effect:
in
1)
believing is
wrong
P)
is
are in
that
1) is whether
but
for
that the
the
believed
hearer
incorrect), P is
true
a different
that or
not
reason).
the
P anyway
that hearer (the
P,
that
believes
hearer
had no
speaker's
The hearer
may
-90-
have has
believed
previously
had a change
suddenly
3.3.3
heart
of
and Van der
differing
from for
evidence
assure
and now becomes
-P,
or
of
P.
convinced
activity
in
She gives
the
1)
that
I
know
I
think
that
what
I assume that
if
3)
I
think
are
I
can
things
I say
6)
I say these
(...
Assuming
that
this
argue
1979)
different
from
what
be right.
which
you
have
will
to
if
that
you
have
you will
to
say
to
that
say
say
that
I
you to
have
to
wrong.
to
argue
is
argue
argument
in
this
thesis
is
that
of
a defined
set
of
this
between
speech
Ockham's that
(Smith
because
each
speech
cognitive
states.
But
It takes
is
that
is
a
an
act those place
is
argument
require self
very because
and
this
and it
is
exists those
dimension The
such
contained cognitive of
der
Van
against
1990).
not
cognitive
denies
Searle
a
speech
However,
relational
Holdcroft
does
dimension
acts as
and
theory
relation.
not
a
evidence
act
Razor
there
Searle
pattern.
supporting
requires
then
arguments,
thesis
inter-speech
an argument
logical
restricting
this
argue
act
are
in
follow
speech
Searle
given
not
using
cause
wrong.
nor
one-line
does
of
to
and you were
context
sort
I want
Wierzbicka
neither
force
illocutionary
because
the
claim
would
that
argue:
you can't
then
in
relation
approach
speech
p. 125).
W is
about
you were
things
central
that
some very
as
supporting
collective
cit.
understand
right
analysis
performed
(Searle who
the The
act.
implies
gives
a
for
things
some
you will are
of
to
state
op.
think
I was right
definition
Veken
argue
).
say that
and
say
and that
5)
states
implies
I am right
that
assume
was right
is
speaker
define
right.
these
speech
the
conditions
you
2)
according
that
arguing
following
it.
their
p. 184)
cit.
(Wierzbicka
time
about
I
in
only
states
extended
4)
(op.
Veken
P.
Wierzbicka
ensure
believes
still
Argue
Searle
act
and now either
-P,
the
a
to
cognitive relational within
states incompatibility
its that
-91-
of
between
views
cognitive
the
two participants to
approach
approach
taken
approach
is
relational
by Searle forced
as
because
the
argument
is
admit
is
speaker to
about
theory
is
Van
der
Veken,
the
of
speech
not
take
discourse.
the
act
place.
than
their
moreover, of
the
some
sort
of
anyway.
force in
always
Hence the
simpler
existence
acts
illocutionary
an
A: Asserts
is
equally
know
to
a position
Consider
the
Provides
supporting
nonsensical that
following
an
sequence:
P
B: Disagrees (Somewhat
A:
to
and
between
element
Argue
speech
in
about
P
taken
aback):
for
evidence
P.
The central of
between
relations
cognitive the
This
that
does
include
is
simply
have
to
hearer's
between
the
of
it,
with
time
of
argue
does
not
and Van der
Veken
(op.
Cit.
The
point They
air.
hearer
the
it
this
of
arguing
notion
make sense.
To
inform
preparatory know what
is
to
assert
condition he is
being
to that
a hearer the
informed
p. 185)
with
hearer of.
that:
state
the does
of and
assertion
Inform
Searle
was
requires
the
additional not
the that
making
force
hence
for
then
will
thin
initial
speaker's
the
made by one of
known that
Because
that
that
1.
of
we
P knowing
out
illocutionary
the
the
disagreement force
have
hoc.
post
out
If
see
may assert
an assertion
may not
on their
presenting
when
state
the
between
we can
condition
at
is
thesis.
On finding
arise
problem
it
acts
this
cognitive
but
and therefore
a relation
illocutionary
3.3.4
speaker
be assigned
necessity
point
discourse,
the
disagree
his
do not
arguments
speech
argue
Wierzbicka's
of
as a starting
the
only
it,
the
be present
it.
with
the
relationships
Speaker
statement).
with
the
that because
exist,
for
need to
not
is
throughout
condition
does
that
in
assertion,
the
first
disagree
participants
can
be developed
a representation
generally
going
and not
may disagree
some people
hearer
quite
discourse,
initial
(the
need not define
will
state
argument
acts
effectively
Wierzbicka's cognitive
be developed
will
speech
the
of
argument
consider this
that
that
states
components
own.
the
thesis
already
of
an
-92-
This
rather
inform
simplistic
and
difference that
does
assert between the
when So
already.
explanation
the
two
speaker
speech
P
difference
crucial
first
of
after
being
informed
that
P the
hearer
has
true.
The
difference
it
would
appear
from
carries
it
with
necessarily
some
between
agreement
on the
authority
then
I assume that
2)
I know something
3)
I assume
4)
I say
5)
I say this
. because
6)
I
that
(...
)
assume
is
that
vague
interpreted
it
know(S
is
speaker
an
for
inform:
X.
about
know.
you should
know it.
know it.
you to
cause
is
this
that
understand
not
you to
cause
something
know it
by saying
simpler,
hence
this. I
have
to
know P
as: know(P))) could
which
we could
speaker
believes
version
of
that
be interpreted
simply
as the
fact
that
be
would
add
something
the
hearer
to should
know
fact
the
represent
that
the
So an alternative
P.
is
2)
know(S
is
unspoken
P)
Additionally
3)
I will
condition
knows P,
speaker
Not
be untrue.
could
you want
want(H
The second
to
will
and I prefer
represented
bel(S
P.
as:
I assume that is
I want
is
inform
an
conditions
I think
you to
cause
you
I assume that
rather
X that
about
that P
of
but the
in
that
subject
P two.
that
is
this
know things
to
the
doubts,
believe
to
that
following
the
that
P.
of
you want
I should
something
This
matter
knows
for
room
on the
hearer
possible
between
authority,
and
gives
no
authority
official
speaker
1)
7)
of or
subject
Wierzbicka
1)
notion
established
leave
to
appears
essential
quite
hearer
the
Inform
all,
is
It
verbs.
between
the
encapsulate
act that
the
not
to
seem
asserts
is
that
not
difference
the
of
P)
& bel(S
a statement
and can be omitted
that from
P)))
want(know(H
justifies the
final
the
use of
schema.
inform
I have
as a speech re-interpreted
act 4)
as SPEAK(S
5)
can
be
H P)
interpreted
as the
fact
that
the
speaker
wants
the
-93-
hearer
know P and hence
to
want (S know(H 6) could
this
not
MB(auth(S
is
in
of
the
SPEAK(S
presumed
state be
would
of
model.
1) bel(S
States:
issuing
of
the
speech
4)
MB(auth(S
know(H
Because
we have
a speech
used.
not
want
to
know about
the
hearer
P)
want (S know (H P))
Effect:
is
know(P)))
want(H
3)
Presumed
Possible P,
P) )
P)
act
inform
called
problems
may occur
if
speaker
or
be an authority
to
effect
H P)
why speak
the
it if
is
is the
not
now
clear
hearer
does by
perceived
on P.
Conjecture
Searle
and is
conjecture
least
that
implies not
P while
that
know the
but
not
condition
is
that
The second
p. 266)
cit.
the
presupposing
for
P.
the
Speaker
answer,
has at
that
state
speaker
a complete
wants
to
one has
that
least it
effectively, form
to
enough
can be represented want(S
(op.
Veken
to
evidence
at
thought is
based
picture.
know P or
what
P
about on
first
My P
some
is
and
as:
know(P)) is
that
the
speaker
does
not
know P:
P)
-know(S third
der
some evidence
Conjecture does
Van
assert
weakly
The
cognitive
it
is
speaker
INFORM becomes:
of
2) know(S
hence
of
but
many problems
a computational
description
the
Cognitive
but
As some sort
the
P))
Action:
3.3.5
that
understanding P.
of
too
pose
a description
Thus
act.
subject
difficulty
significant
7)
by a mutual
on the
should
as
P))
be achieved
an authority
can be represented
is
the
fact
that
the
speaker
in
making
a conjecture
is
-94-
effectively
P is
saying
it
and hence
possible
be represented
could
as: SPEAK(S
Note
that
H poss(P))
an utterance
or The
utterance
best
tentative
fourth
is
at
mean that
not
format
the
of
final
the
that
does
poss(P)
the
) is
(... will
It
possible.
contain
is
speaker
tied
to
indicates
merely
some element
of
making
uncertainty
certainty. that
a statement
the
believes
speaker
is
that
P
to
believe
possible: bel (S poss (P) ) The last in
the
is
condition
focus
possible
speaker
hearer
the
wants
as:
poss (P)) ) the
of
effect
the
P and can be represented
that
possibility
want (S bel(H The
that
is
conjecture
to
discussion).
for
it
place This
into
gives
(as
context
following
the
us
a
schema: SPEAK(S
Action:
H poss(P))
States:
Cognitive
know(P))
1)
want(S
2)
-know(S
poss (P) )
3) bel(S 4)
Possible
may have
The
evidence has
or even
state
4).
3.3.6
Swear
To believe something
that
what
we are
is
that of type
P is
of
sacred
the speech
to
an attempt
to
statement. act,
effect
is
the
true
speaker Although
I have
chosen
the
may feel
as this to
that
hearer by
often a
have
could it
the
be from
to upon
calling
witness
omit
speaker
cognitive
challenging
make the
P.
on
sufficient
evidence
The hearer (in
saying
have
not
the
that
make a pronouncement
may ask what
evidence.
firstly
are
does
speaker
no significance
that
swear
truthfulness another
of
the
conjecture,
add possible
is
conjecture
that
make the
to
to
evidence
sufficient
may feel
hearer
(P)) )
poss
conjecture
with
and problems
effects
hearer
want (S bel(H
incontext(P)
Effect:
Presumed
P)
to seen
the as
my list
-95-
of
speech
I intend
to
state to
element
3.4
speech
Speech
is
commissive
act,
Act
causes
no problems
except
that
there
namely
calling
is
that
acts for
the
"external"
an
upon a deity
or
some
Verbs
the
of
Van
der
the
commitment
linear
first
the
speaker, for
Veken
undertake
(Searle
promise
P,
even 1983
if
is
promise
of
speaker
will
undertake
is
such
that
what
on
the
following
know
2)
I know that
3)
I want
to
4)
I say:
I will
5)
I want
us to
that
believe 1)
that can
be
Searle
and
strength
of This
is
doing
we
person
will
to
are
believe
the
his
do P.
The
that
the itself
credibility
Wierzbicka op.
the
gives
cit.
P
still
obligation
place
(Wierzbicka
do
will
p. 205)
to
to
commitment
p. 205).
do P.
that
do it.
I may not
you want
me to
do it.
do it. think
this
you
I say
I will
way,
when
want
represented
I don't
I have
that that
if
that that
in
think
reasonable
that
Additionally
me to
because
anything
to
else
1983, p. 630).
want
do it
someone
hearer
the
is
you think
I say this,
seems
do P.
a
cit.
that
promise:
you
the
on
p. 192)
cit.
making
that
it
cause
speaker
for
I
we are
op.
to
(Verscheuren
believe
Hence
the
1)
able
to to
conditions
6)
do P,
see
op.
of
the
scrutiny.
Wierzbicka to
by
used
degree
the
Veken
we promise
and
effect
is
der
Van
an obligation
measures
verbs
into
fall
that
acts
involve
the
of
close to
an undertaking
line
one
and
needs
we
(Boguslawski making
and
speech verbs
commissive
measurement When
the
of
Commi: 3sive
group.
part
to
It
Acts.
speech
Promise
This
It
of
under
object.
Commissive
3.4.1
a list
Speech
approach,
the
sacred
it
classify
Formal
call
cognitive
other
and to
acts
because to
I make
me to
carry
do it,
not
will
people
do. to
I want
cause
you to
be
do it. I
a promise out
the
have
some
reason action.
promised
as
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)
is
more I
attempt
to
promise
simply
am
don't
obligation
) is 4)
is
the
do
do
to it.
3)
won't
There
but
may be
This
action.
something
even be
to
appears
promise,
I may make
a feeling
an the
that
I
belief
tentative
of
as
in
operator.
representation
fact
the
of
that
P
future:
the
P)))
at
the
explaining but
speech
do P (or
to
obligation
promise,
the
of
obligation
I prefer
that
act
obligation
the P is
see that
to
placed this
represent is
speaker done).
the
upon
now
as
an
under
an
Hence we can represent
as an effect: bel(H
0(do(S
6) is
now in
that
the
promise.
This
to.
out,; the
H will(do(S
by
effect
the
ought
deontic
out
an attempt
speaker
for
be a simple
should
SPEAK(S
5)
to
represented
the
be carried
will
I
poss (O (do (S P))) )
0(...
Perhaps
it
be
want reason I
carry
could
bel(S where
the
because to
that
as
I may promise
particularly
explain
obliged
you may think
poss (-do (S P))) )
problematical,
though
that
can be represented
know (S bel(H 3)
believe
to
reason
P)))
effect
Hence we need
bel(S
poss(do(S
gives
us
the
Cognitive
an extra
capable
cognitive
it
that of
is
necessary
carrying
out
his
state:
P)))
schema for
SPEAK(S
Action:
he is
believes
speaker
believe
I also
redundant.
promise:
H will(do(S
States:
P)))
1) know(S
want(H
2) know(S
bel(H
3) bel(S
do(S
P))) P))))
poss(-do(S
poss(O(do(S
P))))
4) bel (S poss (do (S P)) ) Presumed
Possible
problems
question
the
promised
action.
speaker
mistakenly
him
do P.
to
bel(H
Effect:
with
speaker's
O(do(S
promise
are
veracity
or
A violation comes The
hearer
P)))
of
to
firstly
that
commitment
condition
the
conclusion
may be
slightly
1) that
hearer
the to
only the
offended
carry occurs
may
out
the
if
the
hearer because
wants the
-97-
had to
speaker that
the
speaker's
3.4.2
promise
her
to
hearer
may not
Finally,
carry
description
some time
spends
do P but
to
want
hearer
the
doubted
never
might
question
P.
out
is
[takes
as
although
consent
difference
take
and
in
place
act
the
whereas
OK,
I want
OK,
I
following
acts
permit
is
happen,
to
if
mind
1)
I
know
2)
I
assume
I
I want
4)
I
it
able can
be
to
happen.
to
list
permit
is
actively
der
Veken
a
in
commissive directives.
of
that
stating
involves
simply
Wierzbicka
because
happen
X to can't
stating the
gives
it
cause
to
you
have if
happen
said I
so. don't
happen.
happen.
I want
you want
to
to
the
cause
thing
to
be able
to
happen.
no one other
than
me could
cause
it
to
be
happen. to
simplified
wants know(S
it
assume that
I
does
to
because
that
as
effectively
permit
you it
want
I say:
the
involves
want
think
you
in
Van
and
it
that
consent:
you
3)
happen
included
in
active
whereas
consent
whereas it
for
that
that
say
include
the
acts,
hearer
the
Searle
that
curious
speech
request, that
p. 113),
cit.
is
consenting
knowledge
speech
conditions
say
that
comparable
a particular
the is
two
consenting
it
don't
to
It of
is
two
without
Additionally,
5)
goodwill
(op.
states
form
permit
response
taxonomy
speech
that:
stating
speaker's
p. 112)
cit.
basis
later
Wierzbicka
permission.
their
and agree,
upon the
on an equal
between place
seeking
dependent
place]
However,
may
consent
(op.
agree:
whereas
takes
Wierzbicka
consent,
of
comparing
consenting
hearer
The speaker
anyway.
ability
the
although
Consent
In
1)
do P.
would
make the
might the
speaker
do P,
to
promise
P to want(H
happen: P))
the
claim
that
the
speaker
knows
that
the
-98-
2)
is
in
hearer
a sense
knows
believes it
P is
that
that
not
hearer
the
can be represented bel(S
Note
bel(H here
that
at
least
3)
may
In
permitted.
believes
other
P is
that
has
speaker
the
words
not
that
the
speaker Hence
permitted.
-p(P)))
be
implied
as a deontic
used
little
therefore
the
with
the
as:
p is
very
that
an understanding
) to
do with
thought
of
that
sense
the
as
the
and has nothing
operator speech
speaker
permit.
act
a statement
that
P is
the
hearer
wants
(or
permitted to
do P.
SPEAK (S H want (S do (11 P) ))
is
4) that
a statement hearer
the
the
speaker
of
the
now knows
wants
ordinarily
consent
and I have
chosen
the
desired
5)
This
speech
to
refers
personal
namely
furthermore fact
the
the
about
that speaker
schema for
following
the
gives
act
and that
permitted
something
it.
omit
the
of
do P.
to to
relates to
P is
that
hearer
effect
consent:
SPEAK(S
Action:
1)
States:
Cognitive
do(H
H want(S
know(S
is
It that
hearer may
giving
permission
question
to
permitted
was
the
whether
3.4.3
is
the it
Wierzbicka refuse:
do P.
the
nature
of
P)))
the
P.
Interestingly,
speaker
is
really
the
hearer
the
Finally, hearer
wants
the
blunt
way of
to
about
sure
may have believed
The hearer
act
speech
do
to
wanted
do P anyway. really
the
of
do(H
want(S
that
he
question
may
do P.
Refuse
Searle
that
to
-pP))
& know(H
pP)
whether
speaker
is
A refusal it.
have
may not
hearer
bel(H
because
though
possible,
the
know(H
Effect:
P))
want(H
2) bel(S Presumed
P)))
a fairly
and Van der
denegation
illocutionary is
a response (op.
Veken
cit.
to
(op. of
an actual p. 94)
gives
cit.
no,
p. 195)
suggest
consent. or the
I will
saying
It
implied following
is
like
that
not
do
refuse
consent
in
request. conditions
for
-99-
1)
I
know
2)
I
think
3)
I say:
4)
I assume that
5)
I say this
6)
I assume you understand
that
you
you
that
assume
I don't
I
I don't
have
I want
(because do
will
do it
to
want
because
do X
me to
want
you
do it
do it.
not
if
I don't
want
to.
know it.
you to
X will
that
so).
it.
and I will to
said
happen
not
because
of
it
be
that. 1)
is
fairly
and can be represented
straightforward
as:
know (S want (H do (S P))) I
am
not
wholly
represented believes
as that
bel(S
the
bel(H
3) therefore
to
form in
I'm
very
merely
need sorry
bel(S is
that
I'm
This
of
gives
Presumed
1)
the is
refusal perfectly
respond Additionally, mind.
the
hearer
hearer
by
P).
-do(S
that
the
for
could
This
wants
utterance form
surface
be carrying
not
will
it that
example
should the
out come out
as:
be possible.
won't
as
desired
the to
that
effect
fact
the
communicate
the
of
he will
that
i. e.
act
speech
not
be
P.
following
SPEAK(S
Cognitive
If
wants
us the
Action:
speaker
afraid
a statement
out
the
represented
speaker
we have
guidance
be explicit,
P)))
carrying
the
P
out
an action
therefore
provides
not or
to
relates
-O(do(S
the
that
P))
perform,
4) can be simply
5)
speaker
can
P))))
some way that
It
action.
by the carry
will
will(do(S
a refusal
speaker
imply
speaker
H -do(S
We know that
logical
held
but
necessary
is:
SPEAK(S
the
belief
a
is
2)
that
convinced
States:
the
bel(H
3) bel(S
-O(do(S
in
-(do(S
hearer
that could
for
P))) P))))
will(do(S P)))
P)))
to
response
However
do(S
want(H
2) bel(S
out
refuse:
P))
1) know(S
always
clear. pointing
H -do(S
know(H
Effect:
is
schema for
3)
condition the
attempt
then
a request
speaker to
change
the
condition
hearer
has
to the
could do
speaker's
P.
-100-
3.5
Directive
We
now
(1979)
(op.
to
the
class
come
in
ordering" something, the
at
out
the
same
really
are
include
the
usually
relates
same
not it
sometimes
to
category
This
leaves
third
by
as
a complex
speaker
wants
without
any
that
an order
directions,
second
seeks
sequence for
i. e.
argue,
I
hearer
acts,
not
carry
Her
which for
choose
a structure
why to
not
because
just
and
in not
it
Hence
one.
instructions
giving
second
third
direct,
to and
an explanation
of
of
hearer
conflict,
and,
imperatives.
as
acts.
requesting
behaviour.
giving
However
the
the
der
Van
different
of
the it
Searle
act.
between
do
by and
"somewhere
co-operative
used
Searle
directive
explanations
when as
to
given
a whole
direct
basic
is to
akin
and
it
described
acts
primitive
making
on the
second
include
would
is
a variant
directions
him
a sense
direct
of
described
directing
expects is
is
as being
by
time
In
act.
meaning is
and
speech
sees
it
that
of
the
as
p. 42)
cit.
describes
she
yet
Direct p. 198)
(op.
Firstly
do
Verbs
cit.
Wierzbicka
and
Act
directives.
as
Veken
Speech
a
I
the
speech
act.
it
Because
and hearer,
include
3.5.1
in
that
namely
a formal issuing
institutionalised
permanent to
imply
to
appears
it
in
the
first
Wierzbicka's
only
list
of
description
relationship a directive,
position
of
formal
speech
of between
the
authority
speaker
I have
direct. speaker has a decided
acts.
Request
Searle
and Van der
Veken
(op.
cit.
p. 199)
describe
as:
Smith
a
directive
of
refusal.
(1970, p. 123)
a more
polite
illocution
that
describes
word
for
the
allows
request
as:
same
thing
for
as
the
ask.
possibility
REQUEST
-101-
At
the
implied
an
sense
Wierzbicka
Passengers I disagree
is
an order
the
with of
politeness
act
theory.
presumably refusal. the
particular
is
command.
a
their
is
is
the
by
is
part
of
are
required
to
of
is
no
speech
what
possibility
further
be explored
command
considerations
requirement
there
above
A
up.
passengers
a safety
will
cigarettes. of
dressed
explained
following
the
gives
of on in
later
for
conditions
(op.
request:
Y to
know
that
Y cannot
something
to
I
2)
I
I
say:
3)
I say this
4)
I don't
5)
I
6)
want
do
doesn't
happen.
Y to
cause
do it.
X has to
I have
that
a
to
reason
happen.
X will
happen.
Y to
cause
1) as:
1) the
the
hearer
as
in
is out
want
you to
expressed
to P,
the
out
it
the
knowledge
-(do(H
P))
directly
expressed or
is
it
whether by factors
determined
that get
won't that
is
this
that
namely
other
form.
effect
then
hearer,
rubbish
is
logical the
the
to
Whether
indirectly
utterance's
action as
take
or
a statement out
a want
P.
action
carry
the
P)))
conveying
implicitly
just is
do(H
H want(S
speaker
I
expressed
carry
X to
cause
understand
Y to
I want
to
I want
X will
(X)
someone
happen.
to
say that
to
assume that
SPEAK(S
2)
because
if
happen
it
cause
I assume that
I encode
than
happen.
want
1)
say that
if
know
I
done.
that This
can
you
do
not be
therefore
do P,
doesn't
Hearer
if
then
not
obtain.
will
know(S
is
often
p. 51)
cit.
3)
that
to
is
thesis. Wierzbicka
In
it
therefore
a topic
akin
My analysis
example it
airline,
it
be an integral
should
cigarettes;
there
extinguish
is
a request
the
an This
however
I feel
their
extinguish
to
an order
which
that
example:
analysis.
of
out
makes
this
form
In
the
requested
with
surface
point
that
using
are
is
on to
authority
this
However that
of
echoes
(4)
he goes
time
same
is
want(S
knows
of
a statement do(H
that
know(H
the
P)).
the
desired
Hence,
speaker
want(S
-P)
->
do(H
wants
P)))
the him
effect
of
presumed to
do P.
the
effect i. e.
speech is
that
act, the
which hearer
P
-102-
4) can be expressed hearer
believe
to
that
speaker
spirit
a request,
her
given
above,
bel(H
O(do(H
the
the
do P (note
is
in
that
he has to
Wierzbicka's argument
fact
as the
of that
that
does
not
this
condition
of
runs
contrary
to
but
has an implied
a request
the
want
sense
of
authority). -want(S
is
5)
a statement held
states
poss (do (H P)) )
gives
the
following
SPEAK(S
Cognitive
Possible
effects
the decline
some
by
way
someone
to
depth
3.5.2
Tell
Both
Searle
(op. cit.
forms
and Van der
meanings
telling
someone
telling
a story.
first. way of
This
meaning
expressing
something. Wierzbicka
is
the
fact
I
look
shall
The following gives
of
are the
are
it
the
hearer
may
to the
examples
following
P in
greater the
consider
used.
p. 200) that
and request
speaker
wants
Wierzbicka
and
two
there
are
in
sense
in
two meanings
of
refuse
nominating
much
shall
can be used
ask
even
in
and secondly the
may
may defer
or
I
agreement
firstly
hearer
request
(op. cit.
be in
the
hearer
where
that
Veken
that
date, at
Six,
request
that
P)))
that
possible a later
similar
P)))
Secondly,
do P at
The easier
P))))
firstly
do something
to
be
to
need
-P)
->
O(do(H
do(H
include
tell:
of
bel(H
want(S
to
seem
P)
poss(do(H
even
not
P))) -do(H
Chapter of
does
cognitive
request:
himself.
do P.
p. 41,286)
different
bel(S
to
in
indirect
3)
is
It
particularly
various
-want(S
request
promising
else
2)
do P
to do P.
to
know(S
know(H
of
speaker
1)
the
at
as:
do(H
H want(S
Effect:
arriving
and therefore
schema for
States:
Presumed
or
Speaker,
bel(S
Action:
ask
for
reason
6) can be represented
represented.
This
the
of
by the
P))))
the
the is in
of of
sense
the
probably that
the
hearer
for
tell:
it
is to
a do
tell:
conditions
(op.
-103-
p. 41)
cit.
1)
I
2)
I assume that
3)
I
I
say:
I can say this
I
have
speech the
to
another
generic
you. know
you to
cause
what
you
act
that.
of
as:
as: do(H
H want(S
example
of
once
informing,
P)))))
inform
where
Here,
of
because
P)))
represent
definition.
act
simply
do(H
poss(INFORM(S
is
This
quite
H want(S
chosen
bel(S
to
do it
you will
1) can be represented
2)
I want
to
do.
I assume that
SPEAK(S
do X.
to
you
because
say this
should 4)
want
again
is
used
it
is
another
intended
denote
to
be assuring,
could
which
inside
reporting
etc. is
3)
a statement between
difference the
giving
know(H
This
tell
hearer
the
want(S
do(H
effect is
request
and
to
option
say
the
of that
no,
The
act.
speech the
speaker
therefore
the
is
not
presumed
is:
effect
4)
desired
the
of
can
be
bel(S
poss(do(H
gives
us the
following
schema for
the
do(H
H want(S
States:
problems
speaker
as
refusing
to
to
poss(do(H
of
something
he really
whether
wants
& P)))
-do(H
the
Tell
us "The
not
a
by Wierzbicka,
(op.
has as much to
do with
out
tell
as it
does
with
Rime of
the
communicative
communicating
P)))
-want(S
include
do(H P)))))
H want(S
P)))
do(H
want(S
tell
tell:
P)))
2) bel(S
with
of
version
hearer
him to
the
questioning do
P,
or
simply,
the
second,
of
hearing
do P.
As pointed meaning
first
poss(INFORM(S
know(H
Possible
P)))
-do(H
1) bel(S
know(H
Effect:
Presumed
-want(S
P)))
SPEAK(S
Cognitive
& know(H
to:
weakened
Action:
P)))
any
state
cit. the
knowing
as exemplified
Ancient
Mariner".
speech to
the
act hearer.
as
p. 286) pleasure by the This
it The
form
does speaker
sentence, of
tell
is
involve
not is
merely
-104-
for
reciting action
of
3.5.3
differs
from it
with
additional
Require
authority
is
thus
more
letter
required
to
to
akin
an
initiate
proceedings
further
notice. is
action
" Here
him
ordering
actually
Wierzbicka
he has
as
pay,
something
(X) to
happen.
know
it
happen
if
say:
I
2)
I
3)
I
you
to
cause
4)
I assume you have
to
do it.
5)
I say this
6)
I assume that
want
because
do(H
P))
-do(H
P)
it
to
you will
do it.
more
specific:
make 1) slightly
want(S
I want
you
don't to
the
speaker
are
we shall
or
amount to
without legal
take but do
to
in
is
"You
28 days
is
done.
use
E. g.
authority
that
be
obligation,
for
conditions
I want
cannot
no
there
its
threat
his
that
of
mentioned the
of
1)
I shall
above
recipient
to
example
within
issuing
agent
following
the
gives
the the
notifying
the
recover
in
but
summons.
balance
outstanding to
a
only
to
needs
obligation,
A good
precedes
and
it
that
that
suggest
something
strength,
of
hearer.
that
the
pay
of
an element
the
do
to
someone degree
p. 201)
cit.
condition
imply
over
"unless"
the
telling a greater
to
(op.
Veken
preparatory
appears
no
der
Van
and
carries
has
it
and
Require
require
an
pleasure
type.
a narrative
Searle
it
hearer's
the
not
so.
require:
it
cause
to
happen.
happen.
cause
you to
do it.
2) becomes know(S 3)
is
-P)
->
simply SPEAK(S
H want(S
do(H
P)))
4) becomes bel(S
O(do(H
P))) into
5) and 6) may be combined the wants
This
believes
speaker him to
do P,
bel(S
bel(H
gives
us the
that
he will
want(S
the
hearer
form believes
do P.
do(H
following
a logical
P))))
do(H ->
schema for
P)
require:
that that
states the
that
if
speaker
-105-
Action:
SPEAK(S
Cognitive
do(H
H want(S
States:
1)
P)))
do(H
want(S
2) know(S
P))
P) -> -P)
-do(H
3) bel (S 0 (do (H P)) ) 4) bel(S Presumed
The obvious after
problem the
which
sanction
speaker
obligation
It
is
possible
speaker
that
P has already
condition,
an extra
namely
hearer
when the is
presumably
the
act.
is
require
with
want (S do (H P))))
do (H P) ->
P)
behind
speech
3.5.4
do(H
Effect:
bel(H
which that
forced
would
been
done,
that
bel(S
to
the
inform
could perhaps
which
the
according
vary
do P,
not
institute
to
hearer
the
does
the
necessitates
-P).
Permit
A good
example below.
given
The person
the
much with The
hospital
I
is
is
concerned
so
not
to it
although
beyond
remain
the
permitted.
was not
1969, p. 441).
gives
the
following
assume
that
people
Wierzbicka
and allow
on something.
effect
visitors
hours,
visiting
(Hayakawa
1)
the
allowed
nurse
as its
permit
something
who permits
itself
action
between
distinction
the
showing
Y if
in
happen
I
for
conditions
say
they
that
think
don't
I
that
permit: can't
them
want
things
to
happen
in
cause to
Y. 2)
I
that
assume
some
(someone)
people
want
will
to
do X
in
if
I
Y.
3)
I say
4)
I
assume that I don't I
say:
they
want don't
will
them to want
to
they
that
think
can't
do it
do it. say
I
that
don't
want
them
people
to
to
do
it.
5)
6)
I say this
because
to
do it.
I
assume people
I want
would
to
cause
understand
those
that
I have
be able
reasons
to
it.
say I have
chosen
simply
as:
to
interpret
The hearer
1) on a more personal
believes
that
P is
forbidden
basis, which
and is
more
-106-
bel(S I have
bel(H
In
to
chosen
bel(S other
fP)) 2)
alter
the
becomes
P))))
poss(want(do(H words,
it
so that
slightly
believes
speaker
that
hearer
the
to
may want
do P. 3)
can be interpreted
hearer
believe
will bel(S
4)
P is
that
H pP)
-INFORM(S
is
forbidden, bel(H
->
P is
that
the
permitted,
is
which
fP))
the
H pP)
a statement
6) does
not
of
following
schema
SPEAK(S
Cognitive
desired
the
for
permit
of
authority,
used
bel(H
2) bel(S
poss(want(do(H
3.6
"formal"
speech
declarative
group
are
speech
acts.
Some of
of
but
communicative they
Speech Act
express
of (op.
us
others
cit.
p. 205).
have
feelings
in
to
The
do P anyway, to
allowed
do P.
call
in
appear
these
Searle's linguistic
extra
specific
very
to
I prefer
some
by
described
acts
that
acts
hearer.
the
want
scope
Verbs
declarative
circumstances,
or excommunicate. on the
them appear do seem to
speech
fP)
his
outside
by
the
be used
acts
bel(H
->
an area
he has been
that
baptise
Expressive
as greetings, other
these
H pP)
he doesn't
that
generally
They can only of
gives
P))))
be questioned
Speech
acts.
category
dimension. examples
fact
Veken
in
speaker
could
first
the
and Van der
This
act.
pP)
speaker
the
is
Declare
act.
fP))
-INFORM(S
and Expressive
Declarative
Searle
it
the
or may acknowledge
bel(S
by the
then
may inform
hearer
speech
1) bel(S
know(H
Effect:
were
the
speech
permit:
3)
If
for
the
of
H pP)
States:
Presumed
effect
seem relevant
really
Action:
that
I state
is SPEAK(S
5)
Unless
as:
acts. such
hand
other to
are
be largely
have
a function
Because as regret,
of it
their is
a rather
mixed
formulaic,
such to
similar nature, rather
difficult
the i. e.
-107-
to
define
types
of
explore
3.7
Evidence
their
from
speech
to
support
beyond
an examination
of
the
use
the
was
the
one
to
a
as
used
hand,
the
other
by
myself
The
in
the
seriously
taking
the the
supports moulded
name
to
The to
it
tone
of
be
quite
doing
in
he does
but
views
as
(1981)
looked the
ages
particular
the
difference
between
the
use
requests
in
an early
age, In
particular,
for
and
imperatives
the
asking
examined age
range
at
children
telling.
(1981)
Carrell
in
children's 4 to
he
as at
an the
absence
of to
are
very
important
see
how
a
simple
language. 'Jesus'
used
But
no
one
blaspheming.
also know
is
he
that
explanation
simple course
On
it
be
could
well.
between
interrogatives
evidence
different
very
not
of
children
than
is
the
word
This
vain.
thesis,
state
in
is
he
so,
in
asking
latter
through
blaspheming.
or
simple,
a deity
other
from
use help
son
need
the
up
directives
that
the
may also
into
translated
picked
in
or
to
Hornsby
found
that
He developed
wants
and
Bock
into
my own
was
difficult
exclaiming
that
used Such
not
can
want
cognitive
support
be
use of
factors
the
issued
when
milk.
is
of
a want
milk
unfortunately
of
their
finding
acts.
communicate
example
is
possible
Language
develop
of
speech
this
this
other
may perhaps
however
simple
act
theory
as autism
theory,
a few
argue
for
reason
such
performance
and
he
Child
an investigation
the
pointing
of
still
interrelated
possibilities
to
child,
representation
several
a command.
when
small
are
from
For
used
way children
state
the
ability
directives.
of
would
of
use
the
thesis.
to
language
stage
milk
the
alerted
the
the
disorders
certain
of
is
in
state
Additionally,
cognitive
scope
children's
early
in
it
Thesis
cognitive
there
here.
acts
was
developed
Cognitive
the
the I
the
although
However,
act.
for
discourse.
support
play
of
speech
Support
to
acts,
come into
same way as has been done
use within
to
Evidence
speech
the
communicative
to
found
in
them
7 and
2.5
of of
development
the
ask
and more
were they for
and
6.5,
tell
and
polite
tended
in they when
to
use
telling.
understanding discovered
of
of that
indirect they
were
-108-
to
able
understand
there
is
found
that
forms. type
and
do that
commissives
are
not
(6)
C: Yes.
(7)
C:
commissive,
to
just
denote
components
of
components,
than
between
strikingly
into
(1977)
had
the
similar
me
children's
fact
in
that
was
society
because
to be
it
and
infants,
to
that
noted
infants
autonomy
they
make
personal
somewhat
of
a
toys?
be
p. 418)
this
that
a statement it
But
include
so
also
difficult
a study
the
(1988a, simply
commissives
He
up toys).
future.
the
that
p. 344).
out
to
and
sequence:
clear
might
is
pre-school
up the
it
more
Dore
seems
Astington
forms
pre-school
in
the
acquisition.
cit.
sufficient
by
or
in
view
(Starts
op.
carried
necessary the
of
relationship
be due to
you clear
suggested
future
may
Consider
P: Will
even
this
This
(5)
was
appear
requests,
comprehension
acts.
not
acquired
simplification.
the
(Carroll
speech
not
commitments.
It
of
(1988a, 1988b)
commissives
have
ease
commissive
suggested
pattern
interrogative
adults
Astington of
the
indirect
of
Furthermore
and
children
use
found
children
request
variety
developmental
a general
declarative
for
a wide
is
both
worth
as
the
intention
of a
a or
that
noting
regarded
be
could
intention,
of
statements
be
might
this
and
rudimentary
commis s ive . One of explicit
the
performative
until
later,
been
mastered
the
before
is
together
put
that
cognitive
Hirst epistemic ages
of
of
3 and 6.5.
meaning
difference
was appreciated.
from
factuals
strength
been It as
(1982)
in
promising
appears
of
to
appears
have
exist
Their
does
the
cognitive
states
and deontic
as early
the
later.
Weil
and
as promise)
because
until
difference
appear
This
as promise
such
concept
of
in
modals
general
finding
between
the
They stated
and that
before
any differentiation
that but
children
the
have for above
compose thing
whole to
the
of
the
between
the
greater
the
credence
intermediate
the
as 2.5,
given
the come
to
example
gives
examined
not
evidence
mastered also
that
provide
states
an
is
Astington
of
(such
approach,
some
commissives not
the
then.
state that
suggests
findings
commissive though
even
cognitive
idea
interesting
most
level.
acquisition children
was that
the
the
modals that
modal
first
distinguish
within
the
earlier
the
expressions modals class
of
-109-
modals
Furthermore
occurs.
(may
and
modal
of
should)
modals.
Le
Bonniec
12th
year.
who
has
This
finding
shown
that
rudimentary
understanding
"not
findings
these
Abbeduto the
findings
indicate
remember
are
not
see
whether
of
ability
to
2.5
illocutionary
acts.
the
state
from
the
cognitive
who
noted
that
indication
the
P: Will
(6)
C: Yes
(7)
C:
direct
possible Furthermore contains presupposed
knowledge
is
their
and
know,
forget not
and
properly
the
early
how
at
even
if
primitive cognitive
used
the
of '
findings (1975)
Gruber
as
used
was
a demand
with
an
marker.
'commissive'
simple
toys). sequence
responses
to
why
we do not precursors states
that
as
line
of
toys?
this
and
out
the across
interesting
'see...
was
away the
about indirect
was
stages, '
be
more
view
we re-examine
away the
the
that
unevenly
not
would
One of
'want...
and
if
which
to
distinguish
were
develop
that
attempting
to
used
findings
The
skills
results on
be
can
of
obtained
concentrated
olds.
point
illocutionary
of
and
cues
approach.
interesting
hint
Reeder
3 years
you put
and
theory
contextual
in
(puts
emergence
Searle's
state
marker
(5)
is
the
A finding
To summarise,
what
are
them.
contain
verbs
believe
whereas
will
modals
children's
as
a
implication
The
cognitive
considerations
to
use
cognitive
at
supportive.
contextual in
4,
at
have
12 it
at
or
(1988),
only
do not
such
of
up by Coates
containing
examined
factives
the
looked
entirely
requests
(1985)
of
11th
the
around
that
the
7.
standpoint
were
those
that
understanding
and that
acts
the
and
comprehension
system.
know and other
of that
(1980)
the
than
mastered
until
Reeder from
speech
and Rosenberg
presupposition
mastered
that
more difficult
considerably
of
is
adult
is,
children
meaning
the
with
an
8
of
of modal
be isomorphic"
the
be backed
age
possibility
noticed
come until
to
appears
of
before
that
doesn't
the
is
behind
suggested
at
modals
They also
lagged
modals
(1974)
that from
separated.
and impossibility
necessity
of
is
deontic
of
epistemic
still
distinguished
are
necessity
comprehension
found
they
the
indirect the
(i. e.
the the
it
that
speech
speech
accept of
is
both
exhibits
have
acts
is
This
act.
a
emerged.
a commissive
it
commissive
in
the
form
of
intention
to
do
act
and
above
as
an
-110-
future
indication).
It
does
come until
promise other
more
given
in
not
is
'difficult'
terms
later.
speech
If
in
the
the
performative
same thing
then
acts,
difficulties
of
that
noteworthy
the
for
occurs
explanation
the
mastering
use of
be
can
cognitive
state
components. Further later
until complex
an early
from
state
What is
In
more
force,
speech
For
context.
states,
some
it
some
difficult is
presented to
the
speech
acts
credence
about
of
is
It
verbs).
terms
the
of
all
still
illocutionary
an
actually
consists
to
say
act Secondly speaker's
should I
in
of
state mind
to
that not that
be
be
a small
understood
in
cognitive
immediately
of
cognitive before
have
for
states as
in
or
that
purpose
the
upon is
a request hearer
the
the
can
we
effect
of
and
be present
will
the
time
being
for
a
particular
should
making
the
in
only I
cases.
states
is
This
that
stated
cast
and
cognitive
utterance.
being
to
act
speech
set
certain
but
chapters,
the
I
preparatory
point
the
making
be present
thought
as
in
the
from
soon
an
remain
of
something
because
the
its
point
before
coming
the
of
those
and
of
are
parts
of
focused
terms
as
must
Firstly
in
two
still
now more
context
immediately
on this
is
wants
which
need
constituent
point
conditions
of
states
seven
illocutionary
speaker
qualified,
the
is
the
part
or
suffice
the
give
only
point
the
mind
be
to
elaborate
speech
evidence
force
point
but
preparatory
speaker's
will
presuppose
are
the
illocutionary
the
act,
that
The
of
in
act
of
illocutionary
forms
uttered.
some
which
act
realistically
example,
known want
and
illocutionary
the
needs
speech
conceived
namely The
specify
the
mastered
Deontics
a theory
illocutionary
that
force
the
this
forward
put
a speech
originally
conditions.
it
not
be stated.
to
new theory,
make
are
Hypothesis?
about of
what
illocutionary
of
least
at
State
I have
think
but
Searle
in
Cognitive
chapter
to
which
etc.
Although
does
specifically
possible
obligation
age. it
deontics
view.
the
this
from
development.
of
conclusive,
cognitive
the
child's
the
from
far
needs
in
states
master
(or
comes
cognitive
to
3.8
evidence
in be
utterance.
it
stone. present By
-111-
this
I
do not
cognitive the
states
speech
the
act
that
is
this
some
and an understanding Hence,
verb.
knows
speaker
on the
intend
what
when correctly these
effect
the
uttering
cognitive effect
the
process,
form
them
of
The perlocutionary
context.
conscious
states
remains
meaning
for
a speech
act have
should less
more or
the
same. The
action
cognitive
for
take
the
of
translation is
So
a
be
which
will
speech
acts
have
been
made
action How,
states? speech
is
act
decode
the
acts
and
some
light
being
cognitive
message
speaker
encodes
decoded private
by
the
ideas
form final
of
hence But
the
and
the
utterance. a
particular
cognitive
states
relational certain
aspect cognitive
of
states
all but
in
hope
I
which
speech least
at
to
able
indirect
is
in see
cognitive
be
to
to
it
then
to
order
back
to
theories
and
shed to
necessary
light
the
of they
whether
the
sound
who
transmitted
how the
see human
of
are
1988
for
the
a fuller the
message
model,
acts
a "receiver",
as
wave)
is
the
M which
interprets
it
by
public
An early
message
speaker
then
as message sounds.
model
description
and
relevant
is
state
cognitive
communication.
called
was
Harnish
some message
are
do
Where
of
recognise
need
will
theories
act
set
up
hypotheses.
hearer
hearer
the
hearer
before
built
an utterance
this?
of
following
the
which
plus
way)?
communication
(the
is
hearer
speech
In
of
the
can
some
into
up to
the path
in
standing
worth
model).
auditory
schema,
(the
state
Demers
"transmitter",
that
the
questions,
linguistic
Akmajian,
a set
how
uttered states
relates
(see
specified.
the
has
style,
stating
questions
hypothesis
themselves
of
linguistic
as
only
firstly in
existing
state
model
mind:
come
the
hypothesis
process
The
an utterance
on these
is
not
fact
unanswered
given
politeness
Now it
this
upon
public
the
specified
cognitive
the
to
cognitive
re-examine
However,
logical
context.
around
many
come
the
the
appropriate
public.
are
immediately
making to
added
the
utterance
is
the
with
select
exactly
an, effect
act
also
revolves
There
from
speech
but
be
the
have
will
making
proposition,
both
that
such
cannot
together
acts to
speaker
factors,
other
states
act,
proposition.
process
implication
speech the
allow
a particular
account
cognitive
the
of
to
states
utterance to
part
of
acts the
as vocal-
channel. transmitted, M. This
In
a
The and
this
model
way goes
-112-
back
to
John
(Akmajian
et. al.
op.
Firstly,
is
process
the
governed
by
process.
Additionally,
any
message intentions, itself,
communicate right
not
tied
in
with
(1979)
the
inferential
message
model is
communication a
system
of
E to
expression at
inferential
The inferential 1.
2.
the
expression
also
make
The
Communicative
this
is
by
the
made
The
Presumption
in
in
its
own
that
is
linguistic
Firstly,
S and hearer the
the
called
H share of
utterance intent.
This model.
state
presumptions: is
hearer
The
the
and
meaning
presumed
referents
of
model
must
state
cognitive
in
the
is
speaker
is
speaker exchange
to
There
(ConPs). hearer
following
some
with
is
assumption
is
This
evidence
state
S and the
This
(PL).
literally. cognitive
communicative
model.
state
there
The speaking
intent.
Presumptions the
(CP).
Literalness
of
speaking
the
often
problems
cognitive
(LP).
cognitive
is
Conversational
point
following
the
that
unless
exchange,
the
communicative
Presumption
that
either
message we
theory
from
by the
communicative
speaker
4.
S's
The
the
assumption.
also
this
speaker
uttered.
identifiable
belief
the
the
the
speaker's
that
act
hearer
the
by
model
study.
shared
determining
of
presumption
3.
their
Presumption
Linguistic
capable
is
about
the
of
solve
leading
makes the
model
The
to
close
of
into
problems.
attempted and
random
understand
fact
speech
these
recognition that
to
the
not
information
is
he
is
strategies
an idea
is
least
H's
take
determined
because
possible
not
uniquely
deserves
which
does
that
a
is a
no account
model,
is
means
is
solve
determine
to
no
contains
if
Clearly, to
by
be
may
concerned
something
this
non-literally.
is
model
to,
there
is
hearer
the
is
a message
Also,
Bach and Harnish
transmitted
model
it
correctly
has made attempts
defeated
message
referred
which and
problems
Disambiguation
message
that
being
correctly.
its
without
are
up to
but
the
interpret
to
need
will
not
interpretation. as the
fact
things
particular
is
principles,
the
consideration
is
that
and it
correct
as far
which,
it
expressions
ambiguous
one
but
p. 395).
cit.
the
linguistically which
(1691),
Locke
the
is
the
shared the
contrary
to
no objection
model. In
the
H presume principles
course that hold:
of at
any any
-113-
Relevance:
Speaker's
exchange
at
that
explicable
in
terms
and the
desired
be used
to
is
of
the
is
model
in
is
the
not
that
may
also
an
talk
exchange
to
that
stage
at
odds
with
to
attempt are
reference
to
of the
th e cognitive
exchanges
by
state
explain
why
appropriate the
S has the
in
is
sincerity
like
the
at
presupposed
beliefs
speech
On the
act.
much might
speaker
wants
when in
fact
the
hearer
he believes
Speaker's
Quantity: of
amount
the
again
part
plan
based helping
of
the
us to
assumption
too
fact
the
a
particular
to
rely
on it the
he believes
P,
just
much,
not
model
goes
model
is
system
and in
of
example,
although
state
understand
for that
Additionally,
recognition
for
however,
state
cognitive
hand,
one
assume that
to
provides
not
cognitive
of
P.
utterance
presumption.
form
needs
believe
not
information,
importance
interpretation
whereby,
to
the
the
or wants
acts
out
rule
On
On the
hand,
other
is
model.
hearer
the
down the
play
for
necessary
has certain
speaker
to
exchange
the
expressed.
attitude
cognitive
because
utterances,
to
contribution
I would
somewhat
this
states
It
act.
to
this
make
of
that
hand,
this
cognitive
appropriate
except
Speaker's
sincere
Once
partially
states.
Sincerity:
too
some speech
again
to
points
cognitive
other
of
model,
types
particular
presupposed
type
Once
going
particular
the
contribution
a communicative
state
is
the
indirection.
Speaker's
cognitive
of
effect
exchange.
this
of
to
relevant
Relevance
point.
determine
Sequencing:
is
contribution
the
the
required
too
little.
along it
does
in
mechanisms
presupposes
the
direction
that the
not
Allen's
as such,
a step
with
underlie cognitive
model.
has
Quality:
Speaker
stated
or presupposed.
cognitive
state
model.
adequate This
is
evidence also
for
an assumption
what
is
of
the
-114-
Truthfulness:
Speaker
true.
also
I would
this
because
which
do after
Manner:
it
unnecessary
wordiness
theory of
not
by
is,
S
not
reveal,
or
does
not
not
wish
done
the
cognitive
large
areas
The
inferential used
of
to
more to the
reveal
does
not
This
state
model.
are adds
inferential
the
model recognise
the
role
between
that
ethically, he
that
information
he that
something
have
ought
ought
not does
H
in
only
a small
between
the
cognitive
state
clear;
the
cognitive
state
will
to
state
relationship
do
to
comparison
an attempt
say about
behaves
for
ask
etc.
at
As
etc.
cognitive
information
hearer
not
that
acts.
speaking
model
is
is
deal
not
this
and
some
theory
politely, vulgar
the
assumption,
in
direct
inferential
from
strategy
he
the
it
avoids
have much to
not
will
abusive,
and speech
does
of
contrary
avoids
state
behaves
speaking.
a great
Speaker
the
is,
expression,
but
when examining
forms
Morality:
model,
in
this
have
politeness
surface
and
of
deceit,
and
The cognitive
offensive,
making
will
implications
lies
that
of
assumption
Speaker
as
well
importance
communication.
clearly
etc.
utterance
it.
is
S
out
of
obscurity
make this
Politeness: is
rules a part
the
make
down the
play
speaks
avoids
say about
model
form
Speaker
also
to
effectively
ambiguity,
will
The
like
all
to
attempts
in
fill
inferential
the
with
detail
part
on
model, is
that
missing
model.
also
includes
an utterance.
description
a It
consists
of of
the four
parts: 1.
The Direct Step
1.
Strategy. The hearer
speaker Step
2.
H recognises
what
expression,
E the
S has uttered.
Hearer
recognises
which
meaning
of
E is
intended
-115-
be operative.
to Step
3.
Step
4.
Hearer
recognises
Hearer
recognises
The Literal Step
is
speaker
what
directly,
communicate
2.
what
if
is
speaker
to.
referring intending
to
literally.
speaking
Strategy.
5.
hearer
recognises
appropriate
for
The
contextually
it
that
be
to
speaker
be
would
speaking
literally. Step
6.
Hearer
literally
communicate
3.
The
Non-Literal 5'.
Step
Hearer
6'.
Step
forms
This
cognitive however the
it
for
It
is
not
would
attempt
to
fill
seems
are
model description
to
is
for
the
would
be
inappropriate
and
of
principal
expand
upon
importance,
much more about
what
state
odds
this,
how some
of
out. exactly of
the
what
the
detail.
pragmatic the
Firstly
and
presumption(CP) held
presumptions area
the
The
with
as to
communicative
The
cognitive
at
more
also
intending
also
recognition.
aspects
in
are
is
act
summarise
what
directly.
merely
speaker
carried
Conversational
the
speaking
more detail
to
(LP),
to
attempts
Relevance necessary
in
explained
model.
of
communicating
necessarily
literalness(PL)
state
cognitive
is
speech
actually
is
model
presumption of
for
appropriate
need
presumption
reveal
above
state
linguistic
the
model
model
presumptions
state
inferential
be
what
recognises
state
now
cognitive
Hearer
to
speaker
indirectly.
listed
steps
speaker
it
that
recognises
communicate
the
what
literally.
Strategy.
contextually
to
to
be contextually
would
be speaking
to
speaker recognises
Hearer
8.
intending
(and directly).
The Indirect
Step
it
that
recognises
Hearer
7.
is
speaker
(and directly).
for
nonliterally
Step
what
Strategy.
inappropriate
4.
recognises
where
the
inferential
by
the
cognitive is
in
relevance
is
model
Presumptions.
and an assumption model,
relevance
but actually
it
of is
not
is
other
expected
to
than
in
-116-
terms
of
some
cognitive
cognitive to
that
in
of
the
the
will
two
by
Sincerity
is
about
it
will
Pi
its
possible
form
is
say
Chapter
but
a
not to
relevance hand
other
Four) but
about
relevant
use
elements
in
the
to
explain
doing
so
it
discourse
of
are
alone. the
cognitive
inferential
a presumption
it
utterances,
expresses
states,
On the
P2.
and (in
where
is
not
will
it
conditions
of
cognitive
Generally,
sincerity
because
right,
to
how
theory
issue
something
and
act
the
with
Quantity
acts.
but
odds
of
structural
speech
that
content
attempt
larger
an
have
terms
between
that
explainable
more
will
relationships
at
in
act
act
a speech
will
utterances
model
recognise
slightly
model
utterance.
state
sequencing
given
propositional
R between
cognitive
not
speech
preceeding
relation
the
state,
responses terms
i. e.,
states
however
model, when
looking
that
is
by
part
of
of
the
hope
say
speech
in
its
own
based
models,
cognitive
state
plan
the
to
formal
at
is
model
I
interesting
explanation
a significant
state
theory. is
Quality but
will
politeness cognitive into
I
is
the
Thus the
examine
assumed
by
is
which state
will
an
Finally
model. but
model,
aims
the
of
1.
To use the
an
explanation
sequencing
2.
To
complete explain
use
is
in
(Chapter
picture
of
phenomena
such
of
the will
are: to how
as to
provide and
why
Four)
to
politeness
how politeness indirect
as
by
treatment.
preconditions detail
greater
ideas
model
is
as
that
something
a
speech
model
a complete
state
is
expanded
greatly
state
cognitive
the
be
receive
cognitive
occurs.
state
morality not
will
model
formal
at
cognitive will
state
Truthfulness
looking
when
the
that
area
cognitive
further.
much
explored
that
Manner
acts.
a presupposition
be
not
presumption
come
also
build be
can speech
acts.
a
more to
used (Chapter
Six)
3.
To build
are
necessary
speech logical
up a description
act
when constructing description
form,
presumptions).
of
(Chapter
an
(consisting
cognitive Five).
the
possible utterance of
pre-conditions
the
steps
that
from
a
utterance and
all
-117-
3.9
Formal
In
the
have
said
part
category
such
as baptise,
very
few.
started
just
such
He
was
however
to
both
types
describe
both
Austin's
reservations
alone
speech
acts.
much
because (op.
p. 117)
cit.
also
and do not
is
hearer is
merely
that
of out, that act
the the
always
observers
speech
be
am
not have
to
conventional formal
Harnish
go
into
not
of
the the
fact
a speaker and
the
that
is
a communicative
with
are Bach
context.
essentially
not
with
the
the
speech
a baby,
parents as
a distinction
cannot
that
R-intentions.
baptism
However
ceremony.
are
Consider
then
case,
acts
concerned
an onlooker. subject
that:
require
so much
judgements
an official
state
in
changes
effect
are
in
speech
conventional
Effectives
issued
have been
they
communicative
assuming
share
consider
of
verdictives
whereas
illocutionary
The
imply
two types
Conventional
but
I
acts
and
to
should
appear
also
such
I
acts.
Bach
and verdictives. affairs,
and Harnish
pointed
distinction,
the
no
attempted
acts
speech
briefly
to
analysis
However
such
intend
only
of
1985)
way.
(1979)
acts.
had
communicative
calling
distinguish
they
institutional
not
I
made
effectives
binding
formal
to
sort
by
detail.
more
acts:
that
1962)
communicative
Veken
same
by
uttered
apparently
the
that verbs
(Austin
same
be
to
specialised,
on to
der
Van
what
acts
correctly
the
been
and
needs
speech
Lectures
Harnish
and
are
Searle
conclusion
Whereas
Firstly
acts
same
having
acts,
way
Bach
view, the
at
in feel
and
very
moving
and
act
are
applying
(Searle of
the
name
acts
something
of
Harvard
However
a different
this
arrived
speech
in
sort
in
about
act.
and
his
before
acts,
of
and
out
cautious
reservations,
in
declaratives
of
excommunicate
Austin
considered
Many
acts.
has
speech
However
acts.
speech
a distinction
chapter, communicative)
speech
formal
the
this
of
(i. e.
formal
about
examining
and Expressives
"ordinary"
called
comprise
Acts
earlier
between
made I
Speech
the one.
Bach
this
although merely
and
Harnish
being
same breath However
there have
made
does
say
a
these
such
baptise,
act
are
is
of
uptake
acts
is as also not
formal are
-118-
different,
and it
same framework. is
not
sincerity
acts
that
conceive
to
of
the
speech
that
act
held
sincerity
of
are
committed
(a process
the
the
master
they
ready
to
accept
aspect
testifying
I might
words,
while
I
acts,
seen
wearing
quite
often
It
is
the
the
speaker
and theory,
swearing
speech
certain if
The to
they commit
processes
if
they
are
ring", is
of
analysis
of
an oath
for be
that
one
must
speech
acts
are
not.
that
there the
to
form
certain
speech
in
acts
the
same
be
not
acts
speech or
to
speech
whether
indirect
acts
for
forms
why of
and
conceive
determines
a part
be
might
testifying.
as
question
if
precise
instance,
are
marry
correct
you are
be
cannot
baptise
interpreted
ask
of
other
communicative
primarily If
In
henceforth
difficult, can
etc.
acts
would
speech
only,
fact
as
formal
during
dubious.
speech
from
"Well
Yet
oath.
detail,
act
the
and
the
types
ceremony
acts
very
taking
be
even
oath,
One cannot
acts.
that
act
not
under
least
formal
with
may
a speech
that
marriage
end
acts
different
say the
or
the
then
distributed
which
on things
such
testifying
indirect then
to
sort
It
speech
is
formal
before
a
considerable
include
speech
formulaic.
indirect
after
of
report
is
same
a wedding
an
into
proof
acts.
of
going
etc.
were
slave
act
several
indirect
officiator
for
two-phase
the
I testify the
to
the
using
to of
speech
is
act
I am uttering
indirect
using
The
-P).
ceremony,
updating
update,
make assertions,
consider
a
bel(S
state
tested
likened
asks
formal
involve
additional
considered
the
this
as assertives, For
an
testify,
testifying,
am also
class
of
may
which
define
bel(S
a marriage
explicitly
process
certain Consider
formal
the
where
(1983)).
see Date
Additionally
is
consistent
where
acts.
to
rules
perhaps
of
speech
possible
conditions
has been
that
the
ensure
speech
I could
other
formal
the
communicate
in
participants
database,
committed,
breaks
sincerity
declaration
the
the
are
is
speaker
the
on
it
states
much different.
are
to
to
the
cognitive
in
that
into
them
a meaning
a lie.
by the the
of
whereas
act
attempts
breaking
we consider
protocol
act,
e. g.
fit
to
as baptise:
have
speech
try notion
such
the
apply,
of
acts If
to
condition
consequences
acts
to the
seem to
a communicative
conditions
with
that
speech
fundamental
as a speech
P)
I feel
conditions
is
sincerity lie
Hence,
applicable
hand,
be a mistake
would
this speech
cannot
is
so act
have
-119-
indirect
forms
be judged
must
Additionally that
Searle in
these I
that
to
be
called
it
is
they
have
done
used
to
describe
cognitive
is
them
where
expressive
fact
that
I
to
want
least.
at
are
show
On
the
similar considered
I for
gratitude
am what is
that
analysis
adversely
I
when
ritual,
the
of
class
hand
formal
not
will
this go.
other
Whatever
it
expressives,
types
a
any
an analysis
on the
just
acts
to
With should
using
but
speech
referred
they
consider
than
not
of
chapter.
where
more
sometimes
-
this
structures,
that
communicating
in
class
have
I
exactly
(1972),
there
someone
3.10
to
mini-discourse
thank
to
as
the
consider
earlier
tempting
Goffman
of
also
expressives.
fence
on the
hand
to
has
my descriptions
remain
one
we must
significant.
the
affect
theory.
state
Conclusions
In speech
this act
have
I
what logical
form final
the
used,
along
There
as
cognitive is
which have
to
inferential to affect
a set to
In
making
The
notion be
will
take
of
and
in
up
which
is
a
are I
which
have
presumed
speaker
would the
with I
clearer
what
how one
speech in
detail
more
build
to
the
in
utterance
a comparison
sequencing
explored
The
place,
becomes
several
expressed
states,
effect
it
Harnish
and
I
there
hearer.
Bach
of
Finally, the
of
information
other
act
states.
the
another
form.
of
of
achieve.
logical
an expression
upon
model
which
also
the
examples
schemas,
with
are for
pre-conditions
effect,
may
action utterance
utterance.
expressed
hoping
be
through
worked
the
called can
essentially
like
develop
to
verbs
have
I
chapter
am act
Chapter
Four. Secondly,
hope
I
to
show
cognitive
state
model
can
pragmatic
maxims
outlined
in
of
surface
Chapter
Five.
Harnish
to
act view
may be that
demonstrating
form,
and
This show inferred
given from
it.
politeness
forms
its
on
effect
be
speech in 3.8
section
influence
to
take
will
taken
the
approach
an utterance,
the
with
I
hope
part
of
the
overall
in
Chapter
forms
by
choice
place
in
Bach
and
speech
appropriate
Finally,
surface
the
to
the the
with
conjunction
this
of
in
descriptions
act
used
an analysis
contrasts
how,
how
extend
greatly
theory Six.
the by
-120-
4.
Speech
4.1
and Discourse
Structure
Introduction
In of
Acts
the
speech
previous
The schematic
acts.
identifiable
separately i)
A state
speech A
iii)
or
set
state
take
that
is
or
of
the
from
the
hearer.
that
the
hearer
hearer
to
the
speech
act.
An
action
theory
to
discourse
of to
be communicated
speech this
act
state
is
words, conveying: discourse committed
to
After
context. P.
elaborate
on the
has
some
bearing
indicate
hearer.
speaker
in
act.
such of
the
is
i. e.
what
not
a
form
the
speech
act
has
bel(S
P)
then
In
other
discourse.
of
it
is
the
is
speaker
can respond
a
as in
P
to
some
in
is
what
point
section,
category
because
is
a
the
the in
this
hearer
for
above
second
as:
want
framework
committed
respond
get
hearing
of
take.
the
we
may be interpreted
utterance,
The third
on this,
the
that
P and in
which
asserting.
we assume that
this must
he is
to
the
to
an understanding
component, but
context
likely
of
is
to
speaker
sort
into
some state
the
the
how such
acts
If
hearer,
the
a result
as
The first
hearer
ways in
do
act
structure,
belief
by a speech
the
speech
making
The
act,
what
perform
put
the
particular
example
or
some statement
P).
expressed
also
to
to
a
he is
what
specifies
the
uttering
bel(S
to
believe
communicate
speaker's
expressed
know,
may be added
before
speech
structure.
to
for
to
that
for
the
of
to
individual
enable
response
believe
discourse
do with
of
I hope to
can be used
an
example.
that
states
may not
that
section
for
Perhaps,
used
what
communicated
a want
sort
effect
the
be
to
A state
a set
define
that
place.
or
this
following
the
contained
as preconditions
a belief
definition
little
wants
perhaps
utterance In
definition
states
to
act
A desired
v)
of
or
comprehend
iv)
definition
a schematic
components:
believes
ii)
I developed
section,
now
to
the
I intend
to
way
to
the
the
list
an
attempt
state above to
-121-
describe
some
the
of
a hearer
ways that
to
may respond
a
given
act. Traditional about the to
speech between
relations
(see
analysis pairs how the
it
then
theory,
thought
not
to
able
of
of
to
these
a speech
as
as
the
pose
is
a surface
with
cognitive
that
T,
some context
speech
acts
help
can
as providing
example it
to to
is
answer
be
to
ought
is
which
the
that
show
both
answer to
an answer
second.
alternative
a question
hope
I
to
as
the
indeed
to
adjacency
a theory
viable for
or
an answer category.
well
This
question form
Ci
if
how,
of more
some even
question
of
inferential/cognitive
the
to
addition additional given
above
types
types
of
types,
I
act
speech of
I
responses, am
referring
Secondly,
employed. of
theory
levels,
analysis
is
also
are
not
it
it
to
possible
are
to
strategy
the
both
models a total
merely
of
seem
speech just
to
way
act?
By
that
act be
can
hierarchical and
analysis
on this,
a limited
any
speech
several
for
explanation
in
response
agree
some
ask
Firstly,
categorise
discourse
to
applicable
to
unrelated.
that
In
chapter.
have
has
the
described
last
the
mean
discourse
that
hearer's
the
sequencing
to
possible necessarily
and
provide or
we
do not
given
structure,
conversational
question
that
responses
in
model
is
Si
in
Pi
content
constrain
of
notion
that
act
P2?
state
questions
subsidiary some
layers
the
the
utterance
some speech
perform
does Pi
content
about
I make an
and propositional all
at
propositional is
to
used
utterance set
if
formally,
more
state
then
S2 with
response
act
to
a
why,
category,
act
as
constrains
as
say
interest
conversational
things way of
pair
that
questions.
To
the
to
able act
the
stand
constitutes
what
questions
difficult
be
to
hand
say
states
insufficient
of
other
much in
is
a speech
approach
schematic
in
ought as
specify
thought
Si
theory
Searle
such
an adjacency
act
speech
On the
very in
element
are
Two) describes
specifying
first
If
1986).
Chapter
without
acts
to
or nothing
Indeed,
acts.
speech
(Searle
study
warrant
speech
between
relationships
has little
theory
act
must
speech
hierarchical
all
subset
the
of
hierarchy? A
third
speech phenomena?
act
that
question
be
theory Here
I
am
is
no
capable referring
less
important,
is
of
explaining
all
particularly
to
can
or
must
discourse insertion
-122-
sequences. Before briefly
on to
moving
the
examining
hierarchical this
levels
discourse
is
"no",
speech
explain
strategies
at
does
discourse
of
the
not
and
answer
and
but
worth
theory
act
I think
is
need
I will
to not
explore
further.
this
The question If
examined.
even the
of
to
Firstly, he
may
a case
in
it
like
(2):
Sorry,
is
which
not form
what
utterance
of
mode
of
may
be it
to
an objection
with
an explanation A full
each
other.
have
a more
the
case
then
can
sequencing?
I
think
is
presumption sequencing other
words,
point
a topic
it
is
have
theory
act
become
will
no
however for
Pi of
for
possible
is
there
(see
propositions
speech
not
come If
to
the
be
to
to
relevant
mind.
anything that
clear
only
the
Pi
after
need are
may
with
presumption
propositions
of
Pi
P2 coming
should
relevance
here.
some
conversational
explanation
cognitive
it
propositions, utterance
of
to
that
alone two
in
noisy
P2
be
might
when
we
this
is
say
about
to
answer
this
yes.
Thirdly, case
why
explanation
detailed
the
theory
act
rather
meaning to
according
Speech
its
a response
P2)
rel(Pi,
relevant
relevance.
is
response
be unintelligible
might
that,
can you repeat
common
does
which
is
the
with
the
or
An example
of
relationship
question
it.
of
shout.
relevance
burdened
in
predict
difficulties it
to
object
no need to
most
of
to
I
can
it
that
be
also
responses
so varied
able
may have
There's
something
it
of
should
(1)
An example
The
they
are
one that type
what
being
about
because
unintelligible
(2)
then
or
hearer
the
delivery,
(1)
P,
get,
talk
is
responses
can take?
responses
be
of
that
to
expect
meaningful
might
range
I assert
conceivably
as
speech
theory
act
it
questions,
structure.
levels
all
main
between
relationship
of
question
the
consider
relevance topic
P2
it change
is
change
is
is
speech may take
between
acts place.
marked
normally This
they largely
that
means
the
still
speech
act
the
two
in
the
that
obey
two
it
the
driven.
In
at
what
determine
example
in
conversational
must
largely For
topic,
change
break
however which
to
1987).
effectively
relevance,
presumption,
hearer
relationship
Schiffrin
example and
the
would
not
be
-123-
introduce
to
permitted
immediately
a topic
after
a
for
question,
example: (3)
Do you know whether
(4)
By
the
who
over
the
limit?
(4)
would
be
response,
it
Response following forbidding
In
two
as
is
clear
(6)
What exactly
final
category
the
if is
rule
was true
that
drunk
on
be
to
the
we consider just
not
a matter
'The
Model
Theory'?
I intend
which
do with
to
brings
This
relevant.
wholly
response,
or not?
has something
Theory'
is
(6) of
that
minister
and was found
However
evasive.
'Model
then
government
legislation
tougher
you mean by
did
that
assuming
the
about
together?
questions
Do you know whether
has gone before the
seen
or not?
breathalysed
got
(5)
(6),
for
then
and
was true
you hear
responsible
was
drivers
of
did
way,
that
to
call
what
us on to
meta-speech
acts. A previous
(7)
The cirrus
(8b)
What exactly
is
speech
another of
an example introducing
is
acts
very
inserted If
the
to
have
between
pairing must
take
acts
is
The
difference
act
is
expect grunt
account the
of
acts
the
and
second
to
acknowledgement.
to It
it is
acts
sequences. the
of
I make
act
in this
some
some
that
by
show be
of
meta-
introduced to
challenge
a
they
that
pair.
structure,
a
then
we
meta-speech
of
insertion
sequences. meta-speech
a
and
to
for
allows
idea
I
then if
be
can
an adjacency
even
to
able
idea
assertion,
way,
reaction
to
that
The
If
react
of
a discourse
functional.
is
meta-plans
parts
speech
(8b)
The
reason
problem
whereas
will
provide
speech
of
an ordinary
to
of
simple
within
answer
idea
for
insertion
able I
acts,
sequences
a theory
be
to
sequences. the
to
must
(S2)
(7),
from
hope
insertion
between
hearer
a
(mSi)
sky?
meta-speech
first
of
of
there
sky,
meteorology.
on I
act.
similar
proposed
largely the
act
of
speech
contents
a mackerel
about
following
Insertion
between are
we
learn
a mackerel
analysis,
conversational
the
(Si)
is
of
(1985).
Litman
formed
ahead. you
idea
an explanation
speech
have
a meta-speech the
provide
by
when did
Since
to
relates
example:
weather
(8a)
that
one
clouds
be better
(8a)
For
act.
speech
is
act
meta-speech
it
is
my assertion
would only that
a
-124-
will
form
the
this
idea
in
hearer to
have
elaborate
In
of
pair
utterance.
In
speaker's
assertion
i)
there
ii)
A
A
two
speech
change
of
topic,
act,
is
there
stated
response
ways in
main
order that is
to
hearer
that
Q.
So,
Q.
One
referring
the
to
states
person
if
I plead
of
the
to
Q.
to
relates
between
relation
to
according
constrained
the
make
speech
act.
In
to
a the
know what
didn't
a
something
say
further
any
and
be
will
2.
of
how a speech
to
it.
act
the
shapes
that
there
a response
that
I believe
not
theory,
act
speech
of
as part
is
itself
relationship
relevance
one of
that
states
act. needs
to
the
for
you to
ways that
the
plea
a hearer
be present
has a reason
do P,
then
sort
of two
are
lets
clear, in
order doing
for
to
we may define
bears
assume
to
plead
so,
so because
the
a in
necessary
I am doing
may respond
one way that
is
that
To make this
making
Hence,
to
information.
need this 1
as
order
respondent order
defined
roughly
in
original
may produce
a particular
the
a
can happen.
this
which
utter
(8b)
be defined
question
the
one of
the
that
relationship to
the
on category
can be given
Firstly, logical
is the
that
to
category
consider
still
to
response
was communicated.
necessary
he would
mostly
something
of
can be
was and in
sky
that
is
which
is
in
above,
intelligent,
Having
is.
sky
a relevance
with
which
response
mackerel
concentrating
as
original
that one -
act
act
speech
act,
that
example
not
seen
be
acts.
meta-speech
reasonable
shall
a
rules.
something
I
the
speech
sequencing
iv)
between
comment on the
cannot
categories
speech
problem
which
An ordinary
iii)
broad
insertion
speaker's
a mackerel
what
as
Si:
way in
the
form
can
the
me
such
a relation
hearer
the
four
are
of
the
want
and reactions
to
he knows
A communication the
or may perhaps
sequence
react
example? above, unless
act
speech
to
However,
and so on,
insertion
an
describe
will
chapter).
idea
the
(I
pair
asserted
maintain
hearer
the
To summarise given
to
the
this
elaboration
acts,
for
necessary
just
I have
order
speech
in
act
my assertion
clarification,
sequences.
speech
detail
understood
on what
for
the
of
considerable
may not
requests
half
second
plea
a hearer's
is
say of by set
-125-
of
is
responses
for
preconditions
I
Another
way
it
forms
that
act
shall
spend
the
bel(S
I
P.
the
sort
leads
4.2
S2,
Winograd taking
place
series
of
of
is
ask
the
or
to
sequencing
define
to them.
Flores
(1986)
describe hearer
and for
This
in
from
action
(according
to
the
hearer
can
the
in
a change also
the
withdraw
structure
for
and Flores acts
(omitting
only
graph. to
a request/response
model act
within
complications
be restricted
raises
by a larger
a
add
response in
actions
turn
Winograd
what
outline
of
pair.
an interesting
a framework such
reject
they
sort
a
five Flores
can
a sense, is
achieve
the
of
some
and
before
request
a
graph
are
Additionally,
In
attempted
there
conditions,
them.
out
a
of
Winograd
the
draw
specifies
request
of
acts? a "dance"
as
B
and
cognitive
speech
form
the
Si
the
They
A to
the
accept
discourse,
these
is,
That
acts.
partners.
a request
After
presupposed
conversation
as
A request
the
of
between
the
also
to
to
how do
within
pairs
or
S2),
state
between
can they
rel(Si,
conditions.
do speech
examine
speech
item
an
modify
namely
is
given
of
Each
The Winograd
that believe
attempt
how
its
conversational
to
exactly
within
the
can
have
state:
may not
chapter
sequencing
acts
negotiate
a new
Flores
and
to
speaker
received
leads
the
satisfaction.
firstly
that
examine
4.1).
courses
or
to
relation
(figure
conditions
they
be
given
asserting
hand,
logically
For
cognitive
(effectively)
and
this.
definition
the
logically
speech itself.
on
schema
this
the
and Context
speaker
with
as
logic.
speech
and
the
other of
can
possibilities
structure
them
aims
influence
constrain
model):
the
states
relevance
possible
on the
time
now
act
state
elaborating
by
respond
to
related
am expressing
discourse
of
adjacent
with
I
that
that
states
communicated
by
then
P,
of
the
chapter
P,
may
cognitive
may be
is
this
that
that
states
states
in
time
States
is
two
given
to
responses
Cognitive
cognitive
a response
hearer
a sort
It
a response
cognitive of
to
which
one
communicated
the
act.
chapter,
believe Thus
to
speech
assert
The
also
in
in
previous P).
they
the
some
if
example, in
by referring
as insertion structure,
of
question; sequencing sequences) such
as the
-1264.1 Figure The Basic Conversation (Winograd and Flores op. cit.
for
Action p. 65)
A: Declare
A: Request
B: Promise 'ýl 2
1
B:
Assert
3
A: Accept
B: Renege
A: Declare
B: Counter
5 A: Counter
B: Reject A: Withdraw A: Reject B: Withdraw
A: Withdraw A: Withdraw
9
-127-
described
one
by
actions
described
speech
act
such
counter
If
there
acts
speech
does
not
terms
of
last
is
in
hand
other
the
of
are
is
it
that
fact
others
this
speech
can be
at
larger
a
and within
structure
act,
look
to
be made clear
should
to
may serve
as a
pairs
to
serve
be necessary
will
as adjacency
discourse
all
that
regarded
it
However,
discourse
of
possible
Clearly,
both
mean that
four
it
a question
not.
operating
this
that
in
described
acts. first
of
the
all
act
speech
then
assert,
verb
in
description
the
to
according
states
cognitive
the
chapter:
2)
) (H (bel P)) poss
3) bel(S
Then
first
serves
merely
prepare
disagree
will
is
state
the an
of
utterance
one
that
true. speaker
know(H
The third
internal
bel(S
of
state
some people
second
cognitive by
is
it
which
the
to
add
we can
is
P
that
now knows
to the
spoken,
he believes hearer
the P
believes
speaker
fact the
hence
that
that
the
context:
P))
state
the
it
for
speaker because
hearer,
by the
speaker,
the
prepares
simply
be believed
might
the
to
true
the
it
context,
"transmitted"
in
context,
P is
The
that
context
committed
that
cognitive
he
that
the
the
fact
the
effectively
namely
within
believes
for
asserting.
is
within
Similarly,
is
he
on the
no effect
speaker
assertive,
become
has
speaker
with
what
Hence
true.
the
x)]))
has
state
cognitive to
bel(S
[Ex:
INFORM(H
want(S
the
-P)])
P)
+bel(S
4)
bel(x
[Ex:
1) bel(S
be
is
we consider
has
structure
on the
levels
then
example
speech
If
some
all
not.
framework.
discourse
Flores
as promise,
such
acts,
an answer
After
and
two different
are
why for
whereas
Flores?
and
Winograd
the
are
speech
explain
it
in
categories
as
constrain
Winograd
fact
is
this
on the
has no effect
the
an
discourse
context. fourth
The the
speaker
considering Having
the
context,
to
the
state
cognitive
making
the
the
effect
described
the
of the
effect
and whether
is
speech that
consider
no direct
of
act
an assertion
reason concern
upon
the
an
assertion
hearer's
likely
making
the
the
with
concerned
and
assertion
we now need to
assertion
is
in
any
way
for when
context. has
upon
responses constrains
-128-
follows
what to
either
it.
Obviously,
accept
First
of
or
to
not
will
be dealt
with
bel(S
and
attempt
P)
know(H have
been
hearer?
but
there
of
assertion.
Firstly,
bel
sorts
Secondly,
directives;
of
follow
Your
(10)
B:
I will
A
is
promise
with
can
only
is
this the
speaker
to
addition bel(H
other
is
It
to or
back
may
example
result
of
P then
it
relevant
then
it
that
the
speaker of
one
was
him
wanted
to
state speech
the
why One
states.
promise
cognitive
which
to
cognitive for
an
problem
an explanation
provide
the
way by
The
perceives
hearer
like
seem
directly
states
the
the
for
pose
act
assertion,
the
that
do P.
This by
approach constrains then
in
there
are
simply P)
or
bel(H
modal
epistemic, possibilities,
explanation
to
directive
commissives
relevant
presupposed
using
the
is
to
cognitive that
speaker
a
a criticism.
hearer
the
a method
determine
it
If the
the
have
sight
directly
not
possible
believed
Going
is
assertion.
time.
like
more
topic.
reference
or
we can
it
because
suggests
another.
if
of
preconditions knew
is
many
untidy.
first
at
might
it if
that
do P.
to
so by
analysis which
next
about
come
him
wants
for
fact
an why
to
so
of
following:
rather
what
follow
an
act
act
how a promise
is it
assertive
category,
presentation improve
the
act,
possible
clear
follow
might
may question
final
The not
an
the
a change
represents
of
is
is
each
might
hearer it
is
be
consider
in
the
different
the
all
assertive
acts
act.
making
but
assertion,
the
would
hence
assertion,
open to
are
of
whether
is
assertive
It
A:
(9),
In
these
act,
either
first
and
true
assertive
(9)
of
consider
the
P,
possibilities
possibility
act
of
a problem. an
a meta-speech
(H -P) ;
is
P
different
more
hearer
the
that
what
there
that
an
the
speech
accepting
following
context,
others,
categories
that
the
or
are
believes
So given
on.
we have
(H P)
issue
possible?
that
assumption
hearer
the
more alternatives
the or
for
prepared
P)) to
added
are
making topic
change later
bel(S
Clearly
bel
we are
is
speaker
P, but
reject
all,
will
the
of
these
'-P)
and deontic
operators
however
before
going
operators
is
necessary.
are on to
involved, examine
these
some
-129-
4.3
Speech
In from
Act
the
Schemas and Logical
remainder logic
epistemic
this
of
Furthermore
and this
raises
two major
be used
together
and what
So far, necessary,
it
operators,
but
schematic be
has
been
explicitly
epistemic
was,
into
substituted
replaced
by
formulae
such
any
was made
such
in
wff
P
use
different
by
of
modal
systems
bel
and
P is
logic.
formulae
using the
make it
that
Hence
was could
will
in
schematic
propositional
I
want.
itself
operators
in
used
where
deontic
or P
deontic
or
and
modal
whether
been
also
as
that
that
a proposition
modified
P has
throughout
schemas
represent
whether
P.
operators
assumption
to
mention
it
logical
modal
can P represent?
exactly used
operators
deontic
and
can these
questions:
been
be using
alethic
introduce
P has
if
and
as both
I shall
no
I shall
chapter,
as well
logics.
Schemas
be
may
P may
represent
as:
PvQ P&
but
-Q
not (P)
necc
However
the
such
as
some
justification.
necc
necc,
and
poss
(1968).
Some of by
important
(Lewis
a
they study
and
reason
been
op.
modalities
English.
Although
English,
I
have
this
should
(1937).
Also
The
).
A problem
logical
in it chosen
these is
is
possible
only
to
is
which
no exact
systems to analyse
the
have the
the
poss(P)
of
ones
cases
and
of
logic
much
use
between that
occur
modalities where
the of
(Hughes
S4
modal
are are
number
system
not
iterated
S5
S5 there
correlation
and
(first
T
S4 and
system
systems
with
necessity
There
in
ones
Cresswell
system
infinite
an
different
and
the
requires operators
in
necc(P),
T has
system
so
modal
systems
the
P,
14 distinct
are
are
In
namely
be
Hughes
the
1932).
on P itself,
studied
example
Feys
Langford
basic
the
systems
language.
distinct
why
popular
cit.
to
operators
most
and
there
the
extensively
for
see
modalities,
refer of
have
these.
of
Cresswell
that
Robert
distinct
modalities and
the
to
apply
consider
logic,
modal
propounded
negation
The
etc.
These
poss. of
six
not
Firstly,
systems
only
does
same
modalities
is for the in in
-130-
are
iterated,
not
namely:
poss,
necc,
and -necc.
-poss
bel (S poss (P) ) bel (S necc (P) ) bel(S
-necc (P) )
bel(S
-poss(P))
Combinations not
the
of
been
considered.
The
deontic
necc
and poss
logic.
An extensive
Hilpinen
(1971).
The
Von
significant
the
modal
a proposition
is
permission
not if
and
the
the
negation primitive
of
Von
Wright's
systems
logic
deontic
notions
of
necessity if
and
and
not
system
of in
given
laid
were
is
there obligation
its
a and For is
negation if
obligatory
and
only is
Permission
permitted. there
and
have
possibility.
if
only is
is
is logic
that
a proposition proposition
from
come
stated
necessary
the
but
deontic
of
of
of
possible
Wright
notions
Similarly,
possible. the
between
analogy
example
Von
f
deontic
of
foundations
(1951).
Wright
survey
modern
are
) p and
0(...
operators
deontic
by
operators
basic
three
are
axioms:
Op
-P-p
Pp V P-p 0(p (Note
& -p)
the
above
denoting
operator Von names he
in
that
intended
and
deontic
the
implication
this
is
permissible,
i. e.
00p
1971,
However
it
p. 10). is
acceptable
as
(1958)
Anderson to
alethic
modal
Op
N (-p
N is
necessity
where
of
violation P
is
sanction implies
logic
Op is
be
the
and
states
of as
used
a wff
(Follesdal
Hilpinen
(op.
deontic
logic
or
deontic the
Hence
affairs.
and is
operators
)
cit.
not
Hilpinen
and
that
state
iterated
whether
to
act-predicates
of
determine
that
be prefixed
must
iteration
not
by means of
are
wffs
not.
logic
be reduced
might
reduction
schema
-> S) and
one's
duties. if
obligatory
the
or
the
suggested
a 'bad
S,
operators
to
that
of
as
S
interprets
deontic
to
principles
and P is
a proposition
)
Follesdal
impossible
almost
p is
operators
of
the
valid.
descriptions
to
not
not
notation,
that
stated
acts
are
permission.
Wright
of
& -p)
and -P(p
in
other
sanction.
S is
a propositional
thing'
or
Hence and
only
words
a sanction
the if p is
above -p
Anderson
constant. which formula
means
(necessarily)
forbidden
from
results
if
implies and
only
the if
it
-131-
It
has
give
been
to
rise
speech
what
Given
1963).
However
Chisholm's
as
do
to
we ought
it
that in
accepted
is
deontic
deontic
of
for
example
this
should that
we fail
to
logic
the not
is
point after
unclear
of
its
use
affect
do
can
paradox
we need
this
a way
of
something
we
proposition
P (assuming
possible
deontic
that
they
more properly
six
to
apply
may only
they
are
operators
operators
the
human acts do(...
formulae
the
not
on
to
refer
be
should
wffs
assume that
we could
leaves
then
and
iterated
whether
systems,
acceptable
then
system
do.
to
ought
standard
paradoxes,
theory
act
deciding
the
certain
(Chisholm
commitment in
that
noted
P)):
0 (do (x P) ) P))
-O(do(x
p (do (x P) ) P))
-p(do(x
f (do (x P) ) P))
-f(do(x This
reduces to
cleaner
four
to
because two
the
eliminate
the
of
of
symmetry
negative
f.
p and
forms,
leaving
could
be called
is
It
us with:
0 (do (x P) ) P))
-O(do(x
P))
p(do(x
f (do (x P) ) leaves
This of
the
intention.
do(x
prefixes meaning: simply
denotes
in
future.
the
means
operator
that
necc(do(S
and you
On the
have
other
failed hand,
P))
of
types we must
is
doing i. e.
a fine
sometimes for
your when
if
example In
exam. used
in
P.
I this
has
case
a sentence
the
happen
of
0(do(S
between
0(... the
their
of
have
to )
it
P
intensional
the
possibility
I
it
rough
prefixes
distinction
P)
when
means P will
plus
say:
can
we
as P and do(x
When it
will(P)
the
consider
propositions
intensional
logic
of
operator
then
when it
P))
tense,
distinct that
them
only
will(do(x
intention
future
There
combination. P))
the
two
Using
i. e.
has the
x
will
operator
P),
is
the
all
acts,
or
affairs
two by representing
the
The
respectively.
that
assumption
of
states
between
distinguish
which
we make the
If either
represent
will,
operator
inform
seems form:
you
correct. You
have
-132-
to
...,
upon
what
the
assumption
the
deontic
that
sometimes in
however
combined,
For
cases.
the
to
On the
with
0(...
other
).
set
are
conjunction
P))
obligatory
that
a lift
to
P))).
Once again, Having
say at in
bel
are
operator for
allow
or want
I want
different
P to
to
to
there the
are
speaker's
to
given a certain
This
becomes:
you is
P)))
the
..
or
forbid
proposition the
I will
not
epistemic consider
two.
The
the it
However want
alone.
will
I acknowledge
I may want
do P.
I might
although the
P to
is
It
you do P. e. g.
use with P).
P)))
i. e.
upon the
for
in
used
poss(will(do(S
with
simpler.
a communicated
expressed
cases
case,
you to
set
forbid
to
that
operators,
bel(S
be a lot
be necessary
Other
O(will(do(H
modal
between
you to
to
combine
seat.
when
obligatory
apply
as:
on P.
my wanting
Therefore, P)
such
to
same meaning,
operators
these
differences
any operators
come about, that
formulae
appears
want
the
consider
possible
that
once
up your
when examining
example
is
the
with
know as a separate indeed
for
roughly
only
the
examined
operator
there
I will
give
out
an obligation
be superfluous
to
tomorrow.
work
).
P).
do P and It
be used
be
certain
poss(f(do(H
combinations
operators,
you will
to
have
that
this
pointing
up your
I might
does
0(...
appear
give
indicates
these
have
doesn't
to
example:
appears
to
appear
you
the
will
have
of
be
cannot
prefix
possibility
not
and
do so in
to
You may have
necc
am
it
they
A sentence
seat.
the
sentence
consider
means that
and
can
acts
meaningfully
be:
*You must
deontic
give
operator
could
operator
may also
I must
This
on P and do(x
with
and 0(do(H
P,
up your
hand the
operator
Will
give
out
I won't
The
to
I
however, to
make
affairs
deontic
and
possible
appears
pointing
This
operators
This
of
because
operators
theoretically
for
do this
can occur,
below).
possible,
her.
seeing
of
modal
I shall
states
modals
to
Consider:
combinations
possible.
to
where this
poss
to
(I
acts
apply
In practice,
refer
depend
seems to
obligation
do.
practice
is
act.
A sentence
act.
from
it
example
an obligation
to
cases
analysis
You have
Consider:
has to
refer
in
or
and poss
the
although
occur
seat.
necc
consider
sense
necessity
hearer
the
operators
combined, make
denotes
exactly
to
going
will
it
whether
It
doesn't
state
of
that
epistemic to
seem
P to
affairs to
say
That
is
makes no sense be forbidden.
P. state
of
of
responses
that
belief
in
After
P.
the
speaker
the
hearer
all,
of can
bel(S make
my contention
-133-
is
that
belief
in
this the
P. (H P)
is
the
to
an assertion,
(12)
has
such
flowered
to
the
speaker's
accepts
P as
true.
Thus
also
believes
to
say
if
as:
late fact
the
communicate
only
some way
hearer
the
case,
The daffodils
he
P,
that
or
simplest
order
in
respond
we have
makes
(11)
must
Firstly,
bel
speaker
in
hearer
the
this
that
year, hearer
the
like:
something
Yes,
even (13)
On
the
for
(14)
hearer
may not
the
schematic
maintain this
believe
P.
that
nature
the
of
In
this
formulae,
I
as:
P) the
example,
in
the
represent
-bel(H If,
to
order
to
choose
hand,
other
in
case,
Mm.
speaker fifth
Shostakovich's
terms
of
that:
asserts
was a tremendous
symphony direction,
artistic
climbdown
compared
when
his
with
fourth, in
to
order
respond
(15)What
with
P) the
-bel(H
hearer
only
has to
say:
don't
believe
rubbish!
or
(16) Not
at
hearer's
The
all. can be taken
response
to
I
express:
that. Next,
hearer
the
where
expression just
I shall
of
believes
that
P is
or
For
(17)Kasparov the
modal
doubt
asserted.
To which
consider
the
a hedged
example, is
hearer
the
the
operators.
The first
possible,
it
of
acceptance
the
what
chess
an
either
has
speaker
that:
may assert
speaker
strongest
is
is
case
ever,
player
may respond:
(18)Perhaps. This
response
has
(19b) is
the
expressed
intonation
an indication
gives
allows
cognitive
us to
state:
make such
Perhaps
{With
a downward
(19b)
Perhaps
(With
a rising
perhaps
expresses a pragmatic
the
that
(but
tone}
tone)
desired
device
sound
cognitive enables
like
I don't
(possibly
the
either: think
whereas
hearer
so)
right)
you are
state
that
Note
poss(P)).
a response
hearer
the
possible,
bel(H
(19a)
truly
P is
that
to
(19a) avoid
-134-
disagreement. The second
(state?
may assert (20) leading
Your
to
a
is
possibility
in
(22)
He
not
my garden by the
response
That's
the
example,
speaker
) that:
dog's
(21)
For
-poss(P).
again,
hearer
of:
possible!
or
can't
be,
the
effective
I
blocked
up that
meaning
of
in
gap
hedge
the
yesterday. I
that
suggest
The
next
(23)
same
if
the
as
for
The
(24)
clear
responds
with
something
what
is
is
that
P.
(Note
and state
almost
that
onto
the
effectively
example,
I have
that
P is
speaker
it
is
the
necessarily
speech
I shall
the
acid.
happen.
to
been using
between
the
added
like:
that
interchangeably,
necessarily
I
supposed
stating
difference
acts
explain
case
such
as
assert
what
I feel
is
shortly.
) When the
is
like
a comment appended
on P are
the
these it
case,
hearer
assertion.
The
next
which
I
group
to
response Typically,
an
The first
P).
(statement)
speaker's
fP
for
is
used do(x
if
example
the
When must as a P)). or
consolation
agreement,
position,
it
hence
(i. e.
P
pP.
and
when 0(P)
that
of
operators,
be an act, is
case
as a form
arises
deontic
'0(P),
P must
operators,
assertion
the
with
0(P),
consider:
do(x
this
sympathy
operators
deontic
form:
the
of
shall the
considering be of
is
that
he
adds
when
went
then
principal
For
solution
Well
the
necc(P).
:
hearer
the
is
case
(states)
asserts
of
the
P).
-bel(H
If
is
this
speaker
states: (25)
I took
our
dog to
the
this
vets
have
to
morning
her
put
down, the
hearer (26)
The speaker he did
not
by
pointing
out
the
may respond
-0(P)
you had to
Well, has
stated
feel
on
that
comfortable
out
action
with:
that
the
and should the
other
do it, he has about speaker not
she was suffering. just doing,
and the
had a moral
therefore
out
carried
feel
hand may indicate
an action
hearer
responds to
obligation bad about that
the
that
carry
it. hearer
is
-135-
commenting
on the
and
his
above
thanks
for
states
that: (27)
I booked
trains
are may
(28) The
might
in
If
party
the
I
A much
in
If
the
speaker
he
is
in
a position
a
If
neither
your
On the
rights.
authority mild
with
rebuke
not
You
permitted:
Finally, with is
is
a comment:
if
if
the
or
the
future
he will
do P.
Thus,
if
can be interpreted
as:
bel(S
P),
second
the
of
In looked
more
explained. presupposed
course like I
by assert
if
then
form
the
of
authority
Well,
you're
the of with within
a position
may come
of
across
as
a
P is
that
If
the
Specifically
rather
than
the
be little
seems to
will.
speaker in
point first
when it has
response
I have
given
hearer
the
in
utterance
the
just
the
will(do(H
P))
examples
that
part.
this
statements stated
to
then
a confirmation
tense.
that
an unlikely
it
intention,
stating
looks
P,
in
in
very
respect
doing
is
is
operator
P,
pair
comment
wish.
that
there
the If
a
P matters,
hearer then
you
is
a position
permission,
the
do
depends
It
do that?
in
asserted
then
for to
expresses
denote
to
simply
used
to the
with
he
is
consider
when it
an action,
he
ever
becomes
pP.
that
P matters,
do that
must
we
it
asking
If
forbidden?
permission
permission
hand
to
may
grant
permitted
other
respect
for
grant
then
P.
then
authority,
it
for
exists
party
P matters,
you
that's
authority
done
forbidden.
to
are
Lets
action,
of
But
asserted/stated
to
forbidding.
forbid
a position
situation
has
the
depends
he has
this
I
or
of
I know
operator
this
that to
a question:
is
of
states
respect
in
a position
You
to
respect
is
speaker
expensive.
do the
to
forbidden,
that
response:
question.
with
of
in
P.
hearer's
speaker
a position
sort is
on who
use
speaker
think
similar
The
the
becomes
are
assertion:
very
authority
is
that
response
neither
its
the
of
evening,
have, fP.
the
because
seat,
like:
authority
but
again.
hearer's
or
is
where
class
over
form
as a
if
example,
something
is
who has
for
on Friday
shouldn't operator
retort:
that
with
case
hearer
the
respond
something
may even be used
a first
crowded
upon
the
consider
in
has done
speaker
kindness,
very
deontic
much
very
the This
of
you
Oh, you
next
that
obligations.
an action
hearer
the
fact
section, than
that was bel(S
and this
assertions,
the P).
communicated I also
needs
cognitive
referred
to
to
be
state the
notion
-136-
of
in
authority
various
Firstly,
places.
between
assert
and
state
is
that
for
speech
act
state
is
know(S
the
difference because
about an
that
an
the
works
authority the
between
style
not
things
normally building
currently asserted
and
is
stated
that
in
my garden.
not
however
assumed
to
be
state
that
I
am
to
be
am assumed (but
is
a thin
and
those
I
that
Exactly for
the
but
what
a problem
are in
that
stated
not
dividing
debate,
to
open if
queried
comes
am improvising
I
is
but
studying
stated
that
be
to
am
a
is
I
There
assert
a patio
what
I
may be
because
expect
because
itself).
I might
he
I might
state
necessarily
form,
P,
subjects
that
Schumann,
that
example
what
not
surface
Schumann,
matter
example,
Robert
of
would
subject those
For
asserted.
For
knowing
the
states
Robert
of
on
necessarily line
speaker
on P matters.
authority
studying
the
in
cognitive
is
This
differences
the
of
communicated
P).
itself
manifests
when
the
one
I
I
was
can
be
speech
act
theory.
We can therefore
the
give
formulae
rough
to
equate
assert
and
state: (S P)
assert There
two
are
on P matters B with
in
in
The
second
that
can
If is
there
are
the
speaker
and
state,
has
a. bearing
that
I
I
with
shall
respect
hearer
agrees the
and
reached
outcome to
appears
accepts
the
in
speech
to
act
suggest,
estimate lie
that
certainty
speaker
perhaps
guess,
ways
hearer's
the The
is
the
the
of
the
where
poss(P)).
suggest
authority
statement.
is
to
by
in
either
can
which
etc.
be
the
given hearer
P.
with
cognitive
or
the
gives
the
column
conjecture,
the
lists the
last
that
communicated
also
closely
or
4.1
state
on
the
consider
to
the
bel(S
as
over
responses
Table
consider
of
such
4.1.
assertion
most
these
was
again,
in
shall
state
an authority
possible
it
that
speaker's
between
communicating
table
given
others
the
in
corresponds
conclusion
respond
the
case
this
Once
P.
then
a cognitive
difference
how the to
to
response
communicates
although
it
is
A name
The
verb
to
where
exchange.
the
response
relationship,
act
by
A is
an authority
B)).
and
given
A is
that
that
secondly (auth(A
are
communicated hearer
and
assert/state
it
to
firstly
authority:
P))
of
(S P)
= state
P matters
to
summary
state the
(auth(A
directly
refer
P)
to
aspects
respect A
+ auth(S
or
state:
bel(H
then
suggestion,
poss(P)).
On the
he
other
-137Table
4.1
Speaker
The
Structural
State
Hearer
Relationships
State
of
ASSERT/STATE(P)
Authority
Hearer
-
accept
-
dispute hedged acceptance/ doubt
bel(S
P)
bel(H
bel(S
P)
-bel(H
bel(S
P)
bel(H
poss(P))
-
bel(H
-poss(P))
auth(S
know(S
P)
P) P)
P)
dispute
bel(S
P)
bel(H
necc(P))
-
comment
bel(S
P)
bel(H
-necc(P))
-
comment
bel(H
O(do(S
know(S
do(S
P))
P)))
auth(S
P)
sympathise console
comment know(S
do(S
P))
bel(H
-O(do(S
know(S
do(S
P))
bel(H
f(do(S
know(S
do(S
P))
bel(H
p(do(S
P)))
auth(S
P)
comment thank
P)))
auth(S auth(H -
P) P)
question forbid comment
P)))
auth(S auth(H
P) P)
comment rebuke confirm comment
-
Act
-138-
hand,
he can For
People
examples
of
(30b)
I don't
for
(31)
its
one of
case
of
bel(H
final such A:
(34)
B:
the
0(do(S
then
is
to
bound the
case.
suggesting
last
to
similar
P. e. g.
that
night
I fancied
[with
your
be
to
seems
I
saw
possible.
to
similar is
something in
happen,
telescope] for
that
the
this
hearer
the
case
case
assert.
it
becomes
a
-necc(P))
in
occur
may
an
as: I think It
the
crystal have
doesn't to
the
B:
I think
you ought
other acts
more
(37)
A:
(38)
B: Don't
like
hearer
the
the
or persuading
urging
feel
who can forbid.
hearer
(40a)B:
Are
(40b)B:
That
is
(40c)B:
I
think
for
fP
example
I might
you allowed strictly that
is
to
you this
to
used,
my car
do that?
forbidden. is
'0(do(S
P)))
evening.
to.
consider
leave
bel(H
example:
you have
operator
is:
response
book
the
that
For
I think
do so.
to
a comment,
return
when the
authority)
state
is
P)))
poss(do(S
him tomorrow.
when the
I will
bel(S
example:
(36)
hand,
shape.
on a regular
to.
suggests
For
take
will
speaker
visit
A:
is
-poss(P))
merely
bel(H
I might
(39)
out.
case.
A:
it
was the
response
again
case:
modal
do P.
Once again, upon
is
(35)
On the
that
hearer
Saturn
that's
that
Then this
to
the
at
suggests
response
P)).
speaker
think
P is
that
(33)
When
it
that
exchange
bel(H
speaker
necc(P))
speaker
confirmation
that
moons.
I don't
The
the
of
B:
responds
that
except
(32)
the
that
reading
response:
When I looked
A:
bear
would
]
as a result
softened
]
H poss(P))
statistics
recall
hearer
assert,
be:
]
P)
communicated
(bel
official
P)).
generally,
might
[
(bel(H
that:
taller
hearer
it
confirm
suggests
be right.
I seem to
bel (H
[
When
by the
P)
Yes,
or
be getting
think
-bel(H
P))
speaker
seem to
You might
(30c)
The
the
(30a)
that
(-bel(H
responses
[
The
if
example
(29)
it
reject
forbidden.
it the at
is
dependent
heavily
following: the
back
in
future.
(Authority
with
A)
(Authority
with
B)
(neither
party
has
-139-
The same thing (41)
A:
I think
your
right.
(42b)B:
Yes,
you may do so.
(42c)B:
Yes,
I
bel(S
in
simplicity
case
sense
as a response
state
that:
O(do(S
believes
a form
of
that
acceptance
(43)
A:
I shall
(44)
B:
I know.
the
hearer over
from
P or
the
is is
party
form
of
that
which If
P),
permit
then if
informing,
duty
If
to
the
do P then
we
is
P
is
P
that
not
claim. forbidden
with
it
being -
position
an
speaker forbidden. P
to
respect
then
authority,
the P is
that
speaker
is
and
forbid
authority
speaker's
believes the
or the
may take
do
to
obliged
is
if
in
the
is
to
going
in
is
authorised be
of
an act
or
authority,
of
a position hearer
is
(or
permitted
response
party
neither
P is
that.
hearer's
permission
of
granting
of
belief
speaker
forbidden.
hearer
the
the
make
believes
the of
a position
for
seem to
he may either
inform
a position
has
you did.
what
that
hearer
e. g.
speaker's
then
simply
in in
sympathy is
the
the
worth
operators.
speaker's
hearer
believes
may
speaker
neither
report
P matters,
authority doing
to
he disputes
then the
acknowledgement.
the
that
deontic
or
the
of
also
expressed
is
sake
is
on P that
the
the
are
the
It
P))).
it
hand,
other
obligatory, If
have
to
their
them.
operators
hearer
to
appear from
for
believes
speaker
P)))
distinct
consider
O(do(S
The only
by the
bel(S
also
the
don't
therefore,
not
bel(S
where
do P.
to
an obligation
(Neither
that.
-necc(P))
are
P),
shall
is:
case
the
on
I
bel(S
that
bel(S
case:
brevity,
next
examining
future.
B) do
to
in
A)
with
with
allowed
and
cases
the
and
The
(Authority
back
the
at
(Authority
you're
necc(P))
interesting
any
hearer
think
my car
has authority)
cases:
equivalents
to
leave
that's
have
If
I might
Well
The
If
permit:
(42a)B:
party
have
to
applies
a
position
that
the
the
hearer
of
authority.
If is look
the
speaker to
obliged
do P then are
plausible
However forbidden The
it
is which
also
possible
belief
only
bel(H
either
may act
cognitive
the
for
bel(S
the of
of
states
O(do(H
as a form
state
he believes
that
communicates
P)))
hearer
or bel(H to
believe
-0(do(H that
hearer that P))). P
is
objection.
-O(do(S
P))),
which
may
be
-140Table
4.2
Speaker
The Structural
Relationships
for
State
Hearer
bel(S
poss (P) )
bel(H
bel(S
poss (P) )
-bel(H
bel(S
poss (P) )
bel(H
poss(P))
bel(S
poss (P) )
bel(H
bel(S
poss (P) )
bel(S
poss(do(S
bel(S
poss (do (S P)) )
bel(S
poss(do(S
bel(S bel(S
Table
Authority
P)
Act
-
confirm
-
reject
-
agree
-poss(P))
-
as for
bel(H
necc(P))
-
confirm
bel(H
-necc(do(S
P)))
disagree
bel(H
O(do(S
P)))
bel(H
-O (do (S P)))
comment
poss(do(S
P)))
bel(H
f(do(S
P)))
as for
assert
poss(do(S
P)))
bel(H
p(do(S
P)))
as for
assert
4.3
Speaker bel(S
State
SUGGEST(P)
Structural
State fP)
P)))
P)
Relationships
Hearer bel(H
State poss(fP))
for
P)))
assert
urge convince
FORBID(P)
Authority
Act
auth(S,
P)
auth(H,
P)
hedged accept question authority evade
bel(H
fP)
accept
bel(H
pP)
dispute
auth(S, auth(H,
P) P)
challenge correct/inform
-141-
in
represented P looks
more
leading
appropriate
it
forbidden speaker
this
You
over
is
taking
place.
it
is
respect
is
in
which
an
authority
If
the
hearer
possible
cognitive bizarre.
of
the
(46) When the
an
and
The that
case P is
forbidden,
P is
of
rear
to
the
speaker
the
hearer.
wide
presupposed
them
believes is
party
a
are
the
of
the
then
There
are
rather
that
it
in
with
P.
hence
it
case
with
is
a position hearer
The is
a form
of
form respect
the
of to
P,
the
the
then
wear
also
necessity
odd. of
hearer
the is
as
seen
infelicitous
hearer
be
can
not.
that If
if
is
P the
then
matters,
response
to or
believes
P
state
respect
forbidden
hearer
to
Whereas,
cognitive
with
is
to
not
children
respect
defiance.
expressed
P is
the
for
cars.
with
an authority
forbidden then
state,
matters,
to
an
you may be right.
I think
whether
where
If
P
forbidden,
is
effectively
forbids
hearer
the
if
an authority
here.
now illegal
is
an authority
know
to
assumed
appear
fact
being
because
the
with
in
from
Hence,
respect
is
to
neither
where
it
strange
authority
evasive
in
is
a rather
where
is
some
the
is
forbidding
with
hearer
the
that
example:
B: Oh, yes, speaker
we have
case
For
belts
safety
respect
not
cognitive
speaker
although
that
I believe
A:
with
no different
acceptance.
(45)
the
are
and
of
forbidden.
then
by
case
possibility
P is
fP)
act
speaker
a question
forbidden,
is
authority,
hedged
is
P is
that
accepts
is
the
Firstly,
an
party
that
fP),
bel(S
state
bel(S
that
the
You
room.
possibilities
case
responses
this
particular
neither
asking
effectively
of
that
authority
an
this
in
it
that
something
state:
a
being
assume
as
of
than
position.
shall
enter
assumed
three
on P matters, is
is
is
hearer
the
asserting/informing is
cognitive it
I (fP)
to
the
first
f,
do
is
that
secondary
doing
the
and
allowed
examine
the
to
have
rather
notion
forbidden
not
to
P
to
possible
are
pairing in
When considering
The
authority.
range
room
something
operator
being
P matters,
important
speaker
better
communicates
authority
to
the
deontic
the
in
in:
as
fit
something
be
to
allowed
the
to
either
refers
of
to
appears
When examining
terms
I don't
like:
as something
as a response In
statement.
developed,
form
surface
the P being
it
is
hearer
the
necessarily accepts
forbidden
P
that doesn't
important.
For
the
next
case:
bel(H
-necc(fP))
we
must
make
the
-142-
distinction forbidden the
it
the
hearer
and to
speaker
given is
perform
0(fP))
two
sorry
(48)
B: Oh,
sorry,
P is
that known
as
cognitive
latter
state This
case.
of
(bel(H
obligation
theoretically
don't
possible
but
you are
I didn't
forms
an acceptance
of
not
go in
to
permitted
there.
know. fact
the
expressing
while
is
hearer and
becomes
for
the
case
that
a position
of
an authority the
where
that
this
of
amounts
authority
with
is
an
P
to
respect
authority The
authority.
bel(S
state:
this
with
speaker
a challenge
speaker
then
permitted,
in
is
party
the
P it
to
P is
that
a correction,
cases
fP this
that
state:
neither Where
respect
important
more
fP)
are
summarised
the
one
in
in
4.3.
table
last
The speaker is
very
with
A:
(50)
B: Yes,
operators:
hearer
The
When
perhaps
and
state: of
bel(H
A:
(52)
B: No you can't,
challenge
I think
speaker to
his
in
authority.
_
the
authority
an
by
responses
hearer
if For
are
of
the bel(H
state party
neither
is
an
The
two
example:
lane.
red
that's a position
with
of
no
pP
very
a dispute
respect
to
the for
red
The
fP
pP.
if
and party
neither
is
P.
lane.
buses of
unlikely. are
significance
any
When the
significance.
look
to
leads with
be
to
I can go into
is
the
the
be plausible
combined
fP)
authority
all,
operators:
seems
that
(51)
the
of
be
again
you can.
-necc
operators
a position
first
the
which Once
pP). to
considered
P matters.
-poss(pP))
necc
is
I can go into
I think
bel(H
other
to to
respect
(49)
case:
modal
appears
only
authority
only
the
bel(S
state:
who
we consider
involving
poss(pP))
The
If
upon
is
consider
shall
cognitive
dependent
on P matters. hearer
I
the
communicates
this
in
operator
) although
believes
if P.
to
with
the
forbidden,
hearer
the
acts
The than
rather
for
necessary
him.
to
a dispute
it
not
is
P
that
case
impossible.
expressed I'm
respect
former
is
forbidding.
of
believes
A:
B accepts
to
the
'-0(fP))
(47)
If
act
involving
hearer
speaker's
not
the
it
that
the
be important.
to
When the
was
being
necessarily
believing
not
cases
and bel(H
appear
the
but
unusual,
The
not
describes
above
case
between
only. it
authority, hearer
is
in
acts a position
as
a of
-143-
authority
with
P the
to
respect
by the
response
hearer
acts
as
a
correction. The
relationships in
summarised Having
the
epistemic
hearer
to
may be
do
the
speaker
the
ramifications
I
xP)
in
shall the
which
is
want
speaker
or
wants
pP)
are
the
of
now consider speaker
arises
do(H no
state another
a different
uses
P))
it
be
hearer
Nor
for
make
respectively. P
or it
want
are
hearer in
do Q in
for
does
but
P possible,
P.
this
The
case,
to
order
be
to
be meaningful
the
to
These
to
it
would
hearer
the
about.
P)
speaker
that
necessary to
is
wants
P.
wants
P)
do(H
on the
speaker
come
want(S
operators
does
to
to
and
for
the
when
a state
meaningful
hearer
the
want
this
case not
to
of
want(S
this
the
may
the
what
something
that
speaker
form
as:
It
meaningful. obligatory
bel(S that
common
in
bel(S
state:
want.
described that
detail
some
speaker,
operator, most
Note
in
namely
The
cognitive
4.4.
examined
category;
major
the
figure
by
expressed
the
of
make
P possible.
The
expressed
directives
such
normally
realised
a
request).
compound, do P,
first
but
is
willing
In
this
to
carry
If then
hearer
this
acts
for
possible hearer
-poss(do(H
to
the
expresses
do P).
to If it
P))),
then
hearer
expresses
do P and be able
to
If
the
hearer P)).
will(do(H
and will
want
do P in
to
this
case,
as a refusal. bel(H
P))))
poss(will(do(H (note
acceptance
hearer serves
be
speaker's
want
state:
do P-a
the
can
this
as:
it
different,
soiething
hearer
the
serves
tentative
a
means the
it
state
P))
cases.
simple
not
may also
directly,
as
P)))
poss(do(H
the
The hearer
to
surface it
respect
has accepted
a
call
to
the
Wh-questions.
(lets
do(H
may want
are
acts
speech
utters
want(S
can be expressed
this
hearer
expressed
the
hearer
consider
do P then
out. is
this
the
speaker
in
occurs
and
the
with
P))
These
etc.
state:
states
I shall
the
where
cognitive
example,
case, it
case
The hearer for
if
the
expressing
order
interrogatives
by the
do(H
want(S
state:
as request,
first
Consider form
cognitive
means
pre-condition
expresses
the
a refusal
state:
bel(H
of
for bel(H
state: the
is
it
that
necessary
as
bel(H
that
speaker's
request.
If it
is
the
a statement
that
the
the hearer
was going
necc(do(H to
do P
P)))
anyway.
then The
-144Table
Speaker bel(S
4.4
The Structural
State
Hearer
pP)
Speaker want(S
4.5
Possible
poss(pP))
bel(H
fP)
do(H
P))
hearer
Authority
bel(S
State
pP)
Act
-
hedged
auth(S, auth(H,
dispute P) P)
agreement
challenge correction
accept
to
Responses
want(S
P))
-want(do(H
do(H
P))
Act
State
will(do(H
bel(H
the
pP)
Hearer
State
of
State
bel(h
bel(H
Table
Relationships
accept
P))
refuse P))))
poss(will(do(H
bel(H
-poss(do(H
bel(H
necc(do(H
bel(H
-O(do(H
bel(H
f(do(H
P))) P))) P)))
P)))
tentative acceptance decline statement refuse/ favour refuse
grant
-145-
bel(H
case
O(do(H
it
is
more
commitment
to
do P,
state,
P)))
will(do(H
he is
that
under
f(do(H
for
bel(H
P.
It
but
anyway, P)))
important
because
The responses
to
may have
one
under
perhaps
it
the
P. hearer
feels two
of
no obligation Secondly,
request. it
sees
the
as a favour.
be irrelevant,
to
appears
bel(H
when the
he is
the
grant
do
can be used request
a
are
but
as a
reason in
summarised
4.5.
table
final
The
firstly
states: and
in
the
I
this
shall
the
do P-
is
speaker two
expressing
P)).
will(do(S calls
do P
to
an obligation
under
Searle
that
class
the
when
speaker
is
he
that
will
is
consider
case,
P))
he
that is
act
In
O(do(S
secondly
speech
that
case do P.
to
promises
form
This
commissives,
of it
so
is
examining.
worth
is
It has
is
do P.
make
state:
to
going
cognitive
either
would cognitive
by stating
p(do(H
expressed
comes about to
to
do it
P)))
doing
not
P)))
refuses
the
he was not
that
hearer
the
hearer
the
no obligation
The response bel(H
that
-O(do(H
he will
says
odd as an
by expressing
do P effectively
hearer
rather
likely
state
firstly
outcomes: to
or bel(H
The case
is
P)))
been
the
if
someone
If
the
in
that
to
do P can
will
hearer
the
already)
a statement
speaker
that
out
carried
be
would
for
possible
that
says
The
taken
they
case
which
effect.
be
believe
to
will
hearer's
the
by
belief default
the
as do
something
is
possible
(i. e.
P
that
P
that response
hearer
the
(we
case that
that assume
they
do
will
it).
hearer
do P (bel(H
hand,
to
if
or to
bel(H
case: bel(H
case:
indicates
that (assuming
favour
p(do(S
P)))
-necc.
If
say
so or
but the
remain
the
may be either
hearer
that
what
bel(H
hearer silent.
of P)))
necc(do(S
the
is
P)))
the
seems if
was promised
0(do(S -O(do(S believes
P))) P))) that
state
P is
the
other
for it
that
by
the is
so,
for
good
similar
hand
other the
hearer
to
forbidden,
the
a
as
promise
seems superfluous is
On
On the
odd.
speaker's was
for
speaker.
expressed the
regards
to
speaker
possible
not to
the
precondition
do P.
will
it
that
felicity
for
a necessary
speaker
believes
-necc(do(S
bel(H
The state:
the
response
question
perhaps The
the
do P his
is
this
that
hearer
the to
speaker
believe
it
that
P)))))
poss(do(S
hearer
the
believes
hearer).
as does bel(H the
case
for
he may either
-146-
Finally, P.
In
4.4
which
Discourse
Pairs
states
in
of
this
objective The
(with
by
response
hearer.
the
pair,
utterance
that
so
is
this
that
first
restate
what
expresses
that
state
in
part
(communicative)
each
a form
as
to
effectively
expressed acts
presupposed
is.
exceptions)
the
speaker.
various
now time
is
thesis
This
the
do
not
will
bonding
of some
a
shapes
the
between
the the
constrains
way
part.
second
idea
The
of
distinct
first
different
speakers.
the
theory
linked
of
adjacency
finally
parts
(with
The parts
and
by these
pairs
and second
parts
adjacent,
act
speech
to
theory
rival
be
is
It
state.
cognitive
it
some possible
believe
not
actually
the
of
speaker
between
relationships
exercise
the
States
some detail,
part
central
act
speech
the
that does
simply
and Cognitive
analysed
cognitive
may believe
hearer
the
case
Having
the
hearer
the
some notable
certain
be
must
has
uttered
by
exceptions)
must
preferred
over
are
responses
a
also
It
pairs.
which
forms
states
others. One
question
situation although the
to
relevant
speech
does
first
the
are
acts
not
is
addressed
adequately adjacent,
but
directly
relate
the
the
second it.
to
In
example,
B's is
two
where
been
has not
that
(53)
A:
I hate
(54)
B:
So do I.
response
B's
works.
directly
relates
I
initial
A's
to
Yes,
saying:
effectively
this
Mahler's
hate
utterance,
Mahler's
works
it
because Contrast
too.
with:
(55)
A:
I hate
(56)
B: Ah,
relate
to
expressing relate
be made.
it
directly
directly but it
is
have
relevant
P)).
-bel(H
relevant However
but
is
response
Mahler's
to do not not
the
works.
A's
initial
(although
the
to
previous
When a response
utterance hearer
is
to
the
is
relevant
may
between and
utterance
directly
Lieder?
Ruckert
The distinction
relate
crucial
his
you heard
theory
in
this
does
not
does
not be
indirectly responses that
those
some cases
that but
but
a fine
that are one.
distinction relate
can directly
-147-
to
the
previous
observance tend
For
ways.
the
acknowledges
scope
of
this
work.
be
discussed
need
to
the
cognitive are
from
attempting
(but
not
several
response
that
possible
to
hearer
the
makes
might
call
only
be
be made
can
a larger speaker
this
an
like
something the
speaker
expresses
state:
-bel(H
P)
dispute
is
foundation
linking
speech
discourse are
the
acts
better
considered
Given
that
refrained Many
cognitive the
simple
it
way
P)
bel(H
hearer's
For
P)
then
may if
the
expresses
the
hand,
hearer
an argument
(Schiffrin
1987).
For
it
is
it
than
larger
discourse
example,
an agreement
The So by
describe
larger
these
of
we
response
other
we can
the
and
a dispute.
states
is
unit.
structure
others. form
to
a
the
and
that
this
call
certain
than
this
state:
On the
the
constrains
In
I
that
a
bel(S
the
it.
verbs.
this
state: the
P)
cognitive
that
desirable
more
of
that
bel(S
for
via
expression
from
hearer
clear
have
I act
and
in
questions
speech
want
Yes).
we might
Note
units.
Mm or
state:
then
acts.
the
(note
beyond
speech
expresses
agreement
is
not
structure
that
a response
with
be made
hearer.
expresses
agree
should
the
the
the
taxonomies,
or
by
that
markers
of
belief
a speaker
marked
it
listing to
are
and
act
lead
acts
build
if
example
speech
not
responses
points
Firstly
such
does
use of
are
Preferred
indicates
... but
by
correctly
options
several
themselves
speech as
to
rise
another
such
but
the
of
existing
all)
dis-preferred
further.
states
there
state,
give
it.
with
viewpoint
study
findings
may be decoded
used
Yes,
speaker's
detailed
These
but
example:
a
consider
markers
be marked,
to
not
various
discourse
of
it
then
utterance,
is
units
generally have
to
a
dispute. Another
case
the
expressed
state:
do
P
calls
will
In
Chapter
the
basis
questions this
do(H
(-want(H flouting Six, of
is
potentially
want(S
do(H
that
P))).
this
from
The
gives
serious
arises
hearer
may not
to
rise
further speech
this
idea
acts
are
of
using acts. grouping
be
such
out
of
want
to
(1983)
Leech
what to
considered
indirect
of,
arise
P)).
generally
describe
a theory
that
is
and I
This
more
undesirable. as
conflicts
There
other
are
in
acts
speech
way:
1. Assuming given act
some S2,
that
the
speech then
if
act that
Si with
speech
actually an
speech
adjacent act
S2
acts,
related has an
then speech
adjacent
-148-
related
speech Si
sequence a This
S2 -->
-->
greater be
hearer
somewhat.
For
example,
utterance
with
he
tends
to
is be
(57)
for
used
Another
example
extended
would an
me to
do it.
of
where
the
be
2.
acts
the
act
is
example
an answer
be
because
come in
look
is?
do(H
directly the
provides the
possibility
variety terms
speaker
of
some
P.
action of
of
in
Its
the
answers
is
P);
with
the
hearer third
might
be an
be
might
leads
act
pairs
supporting
in
look
find
may
certain may
a perfectly
you and Did box.
you of
Do you know where
the
for
newspaper all
first
information
three
he states
to
that
there
that
he will
being
sense states
me
hearer do
in
examined this
P,
is
achieved.
when
-
answers
the
case necessary
intimates
P
act,
answers
the
my theory,
to
it
why
All
the
the
a
no is
box behind
cognitive
to
whereas
the
lead
is
exact
has come about
example,
in
match
as a speech
a question
make much more
presupposed
it'll
important
this
question
to
not
For
you
do(H
that
that
(as
accepted
I'll
as:
Can
In the
marker
speech
do
(interrogative),
the
indicates
a dispute
pair
that
link
to
According to
second
first
that
to
be
may
idea
further
The reason
forms.
(i. e.
P))).
example
case
also
counter-claim).
possible
be answers
This
an
example:
been described
as well
may
(one
for
is
as is
make
So I though
a question
form
box?
the
relate
out
is
only
often
pairing
the
extended
P2.
simple
An issue
not.
answer
newspaper
in
is
surface
might
want(S
have
many different
in
these
and
that,
it
acceptable
this to
categories.
but
of
claim
that
speech
type
In
be
but
Pi,
For
which
related
for
for
in
cases
to
speaker
so).
initiation
may not
no bag meeting.
argument.
evidence
The
is
discourse
speaker
sequence
for
functionally
are
the
pairs?
actual
utterance
this
end
this
Coz there's
opportunity
to
to
about
of
content
but
we impose
can
of
speaker
a further
the
relational
needs
the
indefinitely,
when
idea
response
with
words,
an analysis
propositional up
other
infer
to
possible
merely
simple
by
extended
In
as
the
this
it
than
followed
rise
S3 ?
possible,
that
follow
is
structure
may
suggests
S3,
act
a
carry The in way.
-149-
When
a
propositional state B
P,
makes
relevance
is
topic
that
making
this
but
P
reject
may
expression
of
Pi.
basis
On the into
Primary the to
speech
be
only
implicitly
is
where
a new
also).
The
new
that
in
accept
or the
proposition divide
then
within need
are
speech
speech
context.
to
be
a secondary stress
acts. into
speech
act
verbs
all
do the
a response Primary
adjacent
speech
the
or
as
used
the
act
and within
need
only
discourse
a
of
use
P
to
a new proposition
acts
by
P
to
attitude
secondary
by
perhaps
making
utterance
some
we can and
do not
acts
his
says
by
is
obvious
introduce
proposition
that
marked
in
speech
furthermore,
and
marked,
acts to
here
more
analysis,
serve
speech
discourse
this
B's
case
about
cognitive
relates
heavily
not
state
secondary
an established
implicitly
include
speech
acts
directly
B may not
also
of
and
secondary
is
a cognitive
primary
context,
P,
so either
exception
with
When a person
response
is
this
pairing to
implicitly.
which
(The but
a response
acts
in
relationship,
some
a
P or
to
U
utterance
expressing
make
do
they
relates
introduced,
reason
must
linguistically.
marked
are or
they and
that
they
some
explicitly
P,
about
an utterance
is
either
a response,
something
makes
P,
content
about
the
A
person
marker.
3.
Since,
not
question
the
to be
must
to
to
those
Firstly, declare,
at
described
structures
given
addition
a
how if
arises
in
fit
all
the
of
many
baptise
excommunicate,
theory
into
of
a
marriage
Expressives
fit
to
in
the
in
just
a conversational
about
no place
suddenly of
Or they
I love
Shostakovich's
may appear
in
the
Tahiti
We with
position)
secondary
(59)
A: Do you know Shostakovich's
(60)
B:
I love
it,
its
so witty.
Trot,
its
so witty.
position: Tahiti
as: in
launch
expressive:
(58)
in
conversation.
a
everywhere.
(primary
pair
such
acts have
clearly
middle
in,
named as formal.
We don't
structure.
ce: _emony
appear
off
start
discourse
verbs
some thought fit
speech
etc.
act
speech Also,
I have
performative
the
analysed,
expressives
that
acts
other
above?
exactly
where speech
have been
Trot?
can an
-150-
There
is
formal:
another some
knowledge
these
of
a duty
information.
If my
I warn
course
come of
it.
These
acts
made that in
be
the
that
they
sense
in
primary idea
From the secondary
fit
into
for
whole
Further,
question. terms
of
define
to
a formal
that
they
states,
be
can then
Such acts
in
make
speech form
to
such
most
is
that
it
acts
that
form
speech
if
we consider
the
between
the
define
a I
pair,
is
a
generic
an
answer
question/answer then
precisely
a
and
answer
is
states,
cognitive
act
question/answer
as that
reason
type
act
us to
a primary
pairs
through
the
main
(1987)
groups
them
briefly
shall the
examine
order
some
group,
of
it
is
not term to
a in
pair
to
possible
two parts
an answer
speech
act
verbs
appear
would
occupy
the
first
slot
group be
such
as
forbid,
decline
group more
The
primary.
be
also
ask,
containing
used
forbid
the
of
in
relation
in
Wierzbicka
the
be mostly
to
the
many
the
secondary
slot
permit,
allow,
also
gives
of
are speech
primary,
them
more
accept
such
often.
etc.
set
also
etc.
i. e.
they
The
pair.
etc.
may be
fact
secondary
primary,
containing
first
demand,
act
speech implore
group,
The
I
and
groupings
command,
order,
briefly,
verbs
groupings.
refuse In
act
37 main
these
request,
secondary.
including
into
in
decline,
occupy
speech
containing
These
or
may
a question.
Wierzbicka
to
bad
declarative
a sense
go together
relationship
enable
Going
is
being
of
presupposed
that
pair
set
they
may be assumed to
world.
scheme and the
as a speech
a
the
traditional
this
regarded
to
there
act
that
out
in
I have if
something
cognitive
this
of
that
an assumption
They are
after
then
know
am
position. of
speech
pointed
it.
something,
information
this
of
make a change the
express
I
possession
then
action,
in
then
something,
them
a way that
recipient of
let
do not
in
possession
of
in
are
called
"changes
with inform,
I
they
to
their
information
concerned if
have
I
someone know about
obligation
with
that
act
someone about
proceed
express
are
example, let
to
speech
may assume that
everyone
fulfilled
of acts
For
state".
discharging which
class
also
ask
likely
act
verbs
but
could
as
refuse
The
permit be
tend
to
the
argue
position.
a
grouping
called
-151-
this
group, but
all, a
consists
name
secondary
P.
In
response, but
stance,
This
important
for
acts
as
such
reprove
and
are
(Litman
A:
s1P
B:
s2P
epistemic,
speech
as
act.
This Instead
states
or deontic
more directly
to
a typical
insertion
the
B: Do you mean for
(63)
A:
(64)
B: Under
name verbs in
groups she
has
share verbs
from
a
act
itself.
their
usage?
is
speech
a
idea
the
normal
operators,
above)?
of:
sequence
in
terms
of act
meta-speech For
of
example,
the
the
spanners?
car?
Yes.
are (1)
with (1)
to
sequence:
(62)
question
for
described
P,
speech
A: Where do you keep
there
the
speech
yield
suggests comes
of
of
(61)
Here
idea
larger
briefly
rules
term
verbs
that
to
A
secondary.
(introduced
the
act,
If
that
tend
the
this
the
other
verbs
mostly
are
more
After
tends
is
act
a
including
many
point
A's
is
position
group,
groupings
and what
1985).
modal
consider
here.
together
asserts
form
All
that
are
the
and s2 denote
sl
refers
they
a speech
meta-plans
There
acts
in
either
secondary
or
Thus
a dispute.
are
group
primary
as
itself
other. as
group
these
occurs
in
an argument.
reprimand
meta-speech
are
about
the
and
meta-speech
where
described
however
mostly
about
What exactly A
be
rebuke.
group
either
What
could
Another
is
than
act
name
at
disputed
not
surface
speech
_ee.
B has
P is
of
or
acts
A:
with
P.
why
we have
only
start
not not
argue
properties,
which
that
argue
list, to
certain
paired
disag: acts
attempted
act
as
secondary
Wierzbicka's
4.
types
speech
an assertion.
we may
explain
Wierzbicka's such
as
to
not
dispute
after
asserting
position,
structures
such
asserts
exchange his
in
mostly
B:
tends
the
given
argument,
are
example,
occur
an
some
defends
then
to
merely
dispute.
sequence,
For
tends
and
that
verbs
structures.
describe
to
order
of
is
stairs.
two questions paired
answer is
the
with
(3).
a speech
and two answer
There act
is
forming
(4)
(2)
and question
no problem a question.
that
except
answers,
for (2)
the is
is
theory a meta-
-152-
speech
act
of
answer
to
the For
question. for
the
plans
and
executing
(4)
and
an
sequences
describes
meta-plans
the
provides
answer
insertion
reason,
speech
(1985,
p. 28)
states
that
plans,
In
the
acts,
deal
they
specifying
to
the
are
no problem
main
parts
of
change
part
is
2)
above,
obtain
clarification.
relating
speech
speech of
the
is
that
act
in
act
is
which idea
clarifying
the
the
sequence to
an attempt
of
to
us
plans
some way forcing In
enables
plans,
with
utterance.
this
about
abandoning
deal
or
a meta-speech It
plans,
acts
acts
as plans
introducing
with
same way meta-speech modifying
to
speaker given
meta-act this
(3)
clarification.
theory.
Litman
etc.
for
request
a
speech
act
insertion
explain
sequences.
4.5
The Thesis
In to
be
Restated
last
the
inferential
theory
Three.
The
how
form
of
pairing
proposition.
In
Chapter
an
action
in
terms
the
speaker of
of
this
classified those
that
speech
act.
speaker
to
hearer,
specified
arrive
at
that
formal
sort
thirdly
and
Having
there
to
the
described speech
there hearer
acts
were
sort
were
act
states
directly
in
or
this it
be were
certain the
allowed
be made
a
became
could
a
that
might
and
there
uttering
states
verbs allowed
It
Firstly
a same
act
preconditions.
cognitive
and expressives,
the
utterance
that
verbs
to
of
cognitive
also
explain
states
a
using
to
that
yet)
speaker
response
(either
speech
detail
of
and
speech
cognitive
the
of
used
headings.
justified
the
predict
the
acts,
relate
right as
different
three
Secondly
the
by
this
several
in
acted
that
effectively
communicated
about
to
that
described
I
does
be
Chapter
sequencing
speech can
acts
(not
chapter
under
states
Three
states
cognitive
adjacent
speech
explain
the
on in
described
It
structure.
cognitive between
somehow
in
clear
certain
to
seeks
between
describes
set
chapter
relationship
(1979)
need
which builds
theory
state
Harnish
and
introduced
were
cognitive
a discourse
within
relevance
Bach this
of
work
acts
The
of
ideas
several
together.
pulled
speech
section,
by
that
the were
indirectly).
way and is
still
forgetting possible
to
-153-
live
with
the
framework
and
commissives
directives of
cognitive
Assertives
ii)
and
give
an account
speech
acts
in
knowledge
Directives
assertives, in
these
of
terms
his
iii)
wants
Commissives
categories,
to
save lists.
Searle's
some proposition.
which
the
Speaker
makes
speech
acts
Speaker
makes
into
these
in
which
the
of
verbs
to
intentions.
draw
to
no wish
makes
or needs.
-
his
public
about
in
acts
Speaker
the
which
or belief
speech
-
public
from
-
his
public
have
i. e.
Searle,
states:
i)
I
by
provided
up long
lists that
point
out
e. g.
permit
verbs
such
there
is
be some
would
looked
fit
migration in
upon as an assertive
my scheme. Many
in
function own
speech
speech may
name For
act. agree
surface
position
Answer
can At
be
speech
level
acts
sufficiently
in
that
a speech
uttering
previous
speech
speech
is
act
act,
to
the
relate
this
exchange
pair
The
primary
speech to
serves
which
to
the
discourse
structure,
primary
discourse,
speech
of
describing
discourse
elements acts
fit
approach of into
speech
acts
speech
speech
acts
are
relevant,
speech
acts,
a relevance or
allow
two
when is
it
and
the
of
secondary
speech
secondary
speech
act
which
speech
act.
acts not
So at
may be
At
to
be
acts.
the
pair,
acts
as
levels
lowest
the
paired.
thought
describe
to
the
the
speech
possible
in
state
previous
adjacent
act
was
to
relationship
rejection
hand
to
except
speech
are
act.
meaningful
primary
the
it
but
as
of levels
higher
useful
a
a means
structure.
gives acts
discourse
another
leading
speech
of
is,
to
other
of
is
act
constrain
response
This
terms
it
the
on
restrictive
same proposition in
may
which
with
On the
hearer
the
relation,
an acceptance
implied.
acts
act
agree
another
a relevance
between
possibilities
P,
that
their
way.
where by
to
relative
to
in
acts
form-wise
relative
a dual
serve
speech
Thus
which
same
etc.
asserts
assertion.
discourse
of
of
place
speaker
the
be
the
of
in
connected
to
takes
an action
may be
thought
analysis
and
rebut
names
an assertive,
described
the
the
speaker's
be
to
appear a
not
the
not
that
if
agree,
as
are
an action
example
with
names
they
my scheme,
but
right
act
a basis
and at structure.
the
for
the
explaining
same time The picture
describing is
relational how speech
complicated
by
-154-
meta-speech speech
acts,
act
this
presented
it
theory,
be
would
discourse
speech
of
speech
the
as The
The
act
clarifying
Sinclair in
and
from
from
acts,
they
describe
move
followed
This
structure
initiation
not The
or
correcting
structure
is
missing
from
dialogue
studied
by
Sinclair
is
It
ideas
fairly
level
to
the
with
discourse.
also
possible
adjacency
in
analysis
conversational an adjacency
adjacent
ii)
produced
iii)
ordered
as a first
iv)
typed,
so
particular The
speech the
Firstly two
utterances
by
meta-speech
produced
by
act
primary which acts different
pairing
the
to
classroom is
this
broadly
to
role
is
at
of
response line
of
with in
levels
the
play.
heart
the
the
of
defined
(1973)
That
two utterances
idea
pairing
act
and Sacks
Schegloff
there
situation
higher
at
which
are:
speakers paßt a
second
of
out
speech
by different
that
part
greatly
the
model.
i)
the
initiation
the
equate
as a sequence
pair
as
a classroom
no direct
pair
act
and
Of course,
to
would
here.
pair.
is
the
opposed
not
It
model as
(as
see why,
have
act act
dialogue
is
acts
move.
would
feedback
presented
speech
up
initiation
feedback
the
So the
hierarchy,
level
one an
(1981),
might
of
act
Coulthard),
level
speech
act
to
existing
of
the
speech
was
necessarily
moves,
with
move attached
theories
pairing structure
not
consisting
be an additional structure
of
line
and
the
of
structure
were
the
open
terms
hierarchical
a
an optional
presented
easy
of
with
Burton
in
discourse
move
secondary
it
act
Coulthard?
of
speech
speech
discourse
of
and
the
existing
how does
which
At
of
the
of
a theory
primary
to
the
is
a sequence
out
and
then
acts,
acts.
According
with
Sinclair
to
response.
line
by
a response
move
examine
consisted
speech
above.
also
Two and
with
is
to
model
identifiable
described
with
lessons
by
terms
Coulthard
Chapter
down
going
described
in
question
in
fit
acts
one
described
theory
interesting
structure.
notion
in
as
acts. Having
such
which
and a second first
particular
part a
requires
part
part. theory
and
secondary
speech
are
adjacent.
They
(insertion speakers.
fulfils
also
acts may
of
form
criteria.
they
be
course
are
of
a sequence
Secondly,
sequences). Thirdly
these
ordered
separated they
are as
a
-155-
first
part
and a second
secondary
position.
primaries
require
theory
also
Finally,
states
or want(S
and
acts
speech
used
help
indirect
typed
because
certain
The speech for
act
a
pairing (and
preferred
P)) to
act
language
this
acts.
In
acts
and
pull
(for
I shall
consider
concentrating
type
and the
logics
used
itself.
P)))
from
in
relationship this
chapter
provide
Chapter
Six,
indirect
of
an
into
them
certain
I the
speech of
pairings
bel(S
example:
do(H
disputes
form,
that
notion
and -want(H
prevent
Five,
The theory
chapter.
on the
to
attempted
speech
undesirable
and surface
modal in
are
do(H
Chapter act
deontic
partly
rest
cognitive
speech
are
also
speech
in
described
will
In
of
indirect
examine
speech
and
explanation
analysis
theory
framework
P)
a primary
seconds).
alternative
acts
is
there
secondaries. some
Conversational
shall
they
certain
provides
dispreferred
because
part,
and that
P) and -bel(H many indirect
arising. the
between
relationship
on common sentence between and
the modal
alethic auxiliaries
form and
-156-
5.
From Speech
5.1
Introduction
The
in
to
previous
can be used for
theory
Act
terms
to
speech
sequencing
be
for to
to
relate
The
This
to
the
relate consist
possible
an examination modal
modal
deontic
and
the
idea
possible
cognitive
states. or
want, cognitive
there
is
a
I propose
to
try
forms. of
to will
types
and secondly to
relationship in
used
set
This
sentence
states,
have been
that
operators
chapter.
this
linguistic
and their
for
is
example
cognitive
might
look
to
it
to
chapter,
auxiliaries
form
belief,
a
an examination to
and their
previous
that
respond
why for
actual
relationship
of
must
firstly,
two parts,
and their
to
states
in
presupposed
this
forms
surface
expresses
of
In
a
structure
and secondly
the
the
turn
a question.
cognitive
of
in
us some idea
gives
responses
forward of
so provide
how a surface
act,
something
hearer
and the
at
described
because
doing
elements
and discourse
acts
describe
theory
uttering
and in
look
speech
I put
acts
in
speaker
state. of
Four,
speech
intention
the
support
state
relationships.
to
firstly
to
a particular
Chapter
In
is
chapter
components
speech
and relevance
this
linguistic
evidence
of
how cognitive
together
acts
integration
The aim of
chosen
described
chapter
pair
the of
Utterance
the
the
earlier
chapters. In best
out
carrying
incomplete
an
forward
is
types"
because
that
distinction
certain
speech
their
definition
an assertion a
primitive) This
will
point
is
is
request
interrogative
sentence speech lead that
speaker
knows
request
(once
to
is
acts
form.
I
it
again,
speech
in
not its
acts
sentence
form, the
type
(or types.
sentence
sorts,
be interpreted
as for
interpretation).
using base
declarative
direct
in
basic of
form,
the
a sentence will
suggest
that
make a
surface
by
directly,
to
to
principle
least
correspond of
in
particular
a
with
up
put "base
be
to
at
be
to
point
declarative
the
made,
taxonomy
main
and a request
at
should
bound
possible
made using
by uttering that
is
an assertion is
the
may be considered
acts
it
example,
between
whereas
However
is
it
that
I am accepting
exercise,
analysis.
For
type.
sentence
because
this
but
the
form, example, The
main the a same
-157-
applies
an interrogative
to
interpreted
as
an
declarative
called
The
could is
This
sentence
declaratives
they
buy
vulgar
a good
is
highly
(1983)
Leech
not.
discussing
the A:
(2)
B: Oh no,
(3)
gives
B: Well,
be regarded I
to
in
Britain,
that
that
assertion
is
(perhaps The
pride
second
part
Another to
of
the
an adjacency
to
generation
the
suitable
a is
request
ladies
neat.
Japanese
it
society
is
omit,
would
schema,
which
based
part
includes
act of
which
acts
forms
relationship chapters. an idea
include
use of
part
of of
an analysis topic,
discourse
a section
I
which
is
markers
on
a
and discourse
and modal
very
analysis
some first
to
an
with
conversational
specialised
the
on speech
sentence
speech
final
a highly
pragmatic )).
cit.
includes
part
would
op.
an
entailing
a
previous
it in
so much
thus
possible
in
that
second
not
be concerned
will
used
although, I,
(Leech
used is
is
contravenes
and their
necessarily
which
examined
discuss In
say in
Japanese
achievement,
section
theory
This
grammar
Having briefly
this
Appendix
discourse
means).
untidy.
as boast
modesty
operators
most
markers,
in
in
that
organisation
pair.
chosen
noted
very
looking
such
auxiliaries
preference
determine
have
modal
part
this
of
and deontic
modal
discourse
is
it
act
maxim of
to
to
lawn
an assertion
Leech's
of
similar
and a
garden.
as a mode of
rather
examination the
modest
two
I
be a rather
considerations
kept
but
a speech
uses
but
maxim
employ
and a statement
of
a
as boasting.
suggest
assert,
keep
we try
be acceptable
might
by
them:
the
all,
as
form:
the
of
a boast
example
one of
at
such
Do you know where
an assertion
a beautifully
not
so
normally
more
and cultural
an
of
You have
A response
context
of
realised
may seem to
someone of
between
garden
(1)
Royce?,
between
distinction
the
example:
to
be
case
type
act
being
for
distinction to
it
boasts
wealth
the
a speech
upon
hand Rolls
of
to
going
section). of
to,
not
consider
(although
have
second
sensitive
that
way
do not
the
this
dependent
is
which
shall
be said
type
expression
Furthermore,
in
not
not
particular
might
(I
assertion questions
same
boast.
sentence,
possible
markers. I then
auxiliaries,
taxonomies. this is
chapter, based
on the
I proposed speech
act
a speech recognition
act
-158-
Bach and Harnish
schema
of
serve
as a framework
for
a particular
indirect If
For
in
grammatical
structure
to
basic
categories
of
there
there
sentence,
In
the
(4) Questions
speech
act
sentence basic
four
are
interrogatives, type, here
type
as a sentence
and
statements. is
subject
always
(with
present
and it
statements),
elliptical
for
it.
command as a sentence
used
the
there
support
of
there
statements,
and exclamatory
certain
generally
example:
saw Mary
through
the
telescope.
that
are
marked
sentences
are
is
then
types
(1973)
al.
prefer
a--id it verb)
verb,
John
al.
statements
of
exception
et
chosen
Six.
as valid,
basic
declarative
et
imperative,
declarative
precedes
Quirk
to
act
be three
to
ought
Quirk
as a speech
three
are
namely:
(note:
than
rather
the
if
be regarded
to
excludes
Chapter
be some evidence
According
commands
in
be discussed
will
is
as it
incomplete,
to
structure. of
is
This
intended
form
is
perhaps
types
which
is
how a surface
explaining act.
it
that
except
theory
act
example,
then
not
acts
speech to
ought
for
speech
speech
(1979),
by
more
or
one
the
of
devices:
following i)
The
ii)
The
is
auxiliary
immediately
placed at
positioning
beginning
the
before of
the
subject.
interrogative
an
or
wh-element.
iii)
The use of
Examples
of
(5a)
Will
(5b)
Who will
(5c)
John
Commands verb
these
is
in
are: leave
John
to
declaratives questions speech statements assertives assertives.
is
act
they
on and
are
with
the
and
such other
questions,
by
what
as
an
how:
or
making. we can
acts,
speech
interrogatives
assertives,
verbs
whose
have
which
sentences
are
introduced
requests
or
and
no subject
form:
forms
these
have
generally
statements
What a noise
Comparing
that
instant.
that
phrase
(7)
today?
imperative
the
exclamatory
initial
today?
leave
will
(6) Leave this Finally,
today?
leave
sentences
are
intonation.
rising
commands command, hand
appear
although
they
can
may be
seem
be
equated etc.
order to
roughly
be to
half function
equate to
equated to
certain
Exclamatory way
between more
like
-159-
5.2
The Four
Quirk
et
al.
Basic
Sentence
(op. cit.
p. 166)
Types
give
basic
seven
i)
SVA (subject
verb
adverbial):
ii)
SVC (subject
verb
complement):
iii)
SVO (subject
verb
object):
iv)
SVOA (subject
verb
forms:
clausal is
John
in is
John
kind.
John met Mary.
object
John met Mary
adverbial):
SVOC
(subject
verb
object
book SVOO (subject
vi)
verb
object
held
John
complement):
the
tightly.
John gave
object):
at
dance.
the v)
house.
the
Mary
the
book. SV (subject
vii) Of
the
speech
elements
identification
act
is
important
because
to
himself,
the
important
in
be of
it
or
is
the
someone or instance,
The subject is
speaker
the
type
referring
of
may be
verb
seem to
verbs
they
is
The verb
else.
and auxiliary
so much so that
for
significant
something
significant
importance,
are
and object.
verb
whether
for
also
that
ones
subject,
denotes
many aspects;
particular
extensive
are
hearer
tense
significant,
the
above,
used
laughed.
John
verb):
be given
will
an
analysis.
The second
sentence
can be subdivided i)
into
Yes/No
three
the
interrogative
form
which
affirmation
or
classes:
questions:
expect
which
only
as a response.
rejection ii)
is
category
Wh-questions
that
an item
expect
of
information
to
be
or more options
to
supplied. iii)
Alternative
the
are
questions and
subject
left?
Yes/No
orientation, negative indicates
that
confirmation. drive but
obviously
For speaker
On
the could
you
also
it
can
example:
the
straight?
may words
can't.
thinks
other be
hand
restated In
by
the
putting
intonation.
a rising
using
other
answer.
formed
usually
questions in
two
supply
from.
be chosen Yes/No
that
questions
this
a
or
positive
be biased
towards
Has
train
the
the answer
a question
is
I
thought
way,
it
acts
or
a positive already? is
but
yes
as: you
as
train negative
left
such
as:
the
Has
e. g.
have
before
operator
seeking
Can't were
able
a combination
you to, of
-160-
an
old
you
If
cannot).
structure
as
explain
there
with
that
-P
straight?
force,
but
a form
it also
give
surface
forms
the
believed
is
possible
to
only
give
the
of
yes/no hand
other
state
a form
to
as
approach. his
expresses
in
fixed
a
difficult
such
cognitive
P as not
is
on the
speaker
indication
some
it
then
the
is
category
theory,
for
where
previously
act
orientation,
no problem
using
having
drive
Searle's
(that
a new assertion
with
a speech
different
are
poses
by
as
positive/negative
dichotomy
Because,
question in
drive)
can
you
suggested
why
questions this
(that
assumption
like:
belief Can't
you
illocutionary
an
presupposed
cognitive
states.
Yes/No
orientation
belief
own
believe
that
P,
example:
plus
the
of
is
The
four
identifiable
i)
iv).
tag
be paraphrased
tag
question
it.
A
as:
I
consists
which
a negative
and
positive then is
questions
of
ii)
am I
with
the
for
particle,
in
negative tag
is
that
negative and
subtle
quite
there
if and are
+ neutral
like
+ Positive like
right?
rising
his
work,
with
falling
his
work,
+ negative
assumption
is:
with
+ positive
assumption
I assume he likes
on the There
other is
tone. he? expectation)
falling doesn't
work,
+ Positive
He doesn't
of
+ neutral
assumption
Negative
rising d6esn't
work,
his
He doesn't
i)
with
his
He likes
(negative
work,
of
his
it?
positive
+ Negative
Negative
e. g.
his
of
assumption
(positive
meaning
is
He likes
Positive
e. g.
The
the
hasn't
+ Negative
(negative
The meaning
left,
of
use
Positive
e. g.
iv)
express
confirmation
might
or without
a crossing
(positive
iii)
to
speaker
forms:
e. g.
ii)
is
with
clause
superordinate versa.
seek
orientation
question
has
there
vice
same time
pronoun,
The train
Here
the
allow
am I correct?
form
operator
the
a positive
with
Another of
at
while
question
questions
hand
is:
a similar
tone. he? expectation) tone. d6es
he?
expectation) tone. dries
he?
expectation)
his
work, I
assume
contrast
am I right? he doesn't between
iii)
like and
-161-
There
is
declarative
also
question,
identical
to
questions
that
examined
when
a declarative
the
which,
or
modal
you
a wh-question, Which
with it
are
?
uses
a
set
but
auxiliaries,
called
you
that
except
are
wh-questions
or Q-word:
how,
a is
It final
a of
these
for pizza
for
example:
yes/no be
will
formed
are
whose,
questions
what,
may either
example: or
would
which
who/whom,
Alternative
why.
like
type
it
got
question
verbs.
questions,
Would
(9)
modal
questions
where,
yes/no
(8)
of
yes/no
there
an interrogative
of
when,
resemble
at
group
aid
with
look
I
of
sentence
Additionally operate
The next with
You've
e. g.
intonation.
rising
type
an exceptional
spaghetti?
like,
you
chocolate,
vanilla
questions:
exclamatory
or
raspberry? There
two
are
other
questions
and
rhetorical
generally
invite
the
feels
speaker
(10)
The next most it
it
has no subject
that
modal
may
be
e. g.
in
there.
category
common category
of
do not
occur
down by politeness
subject
is
usually
implied
absent
except
in
a few cases,
You,
in
at
from
markers
the such
are
meaning
that
The
in
that
may be noteworthy
It
in
the
commands.
a statement
verb. all
questions
something
forms
command differs
of
auxiliaries
to
sentence
and has an imperative
toned
(11)
Exclamatory
response
about. noisy
major
of
questions. hearer's
strongly
Wasn't
types
minor
Commands
commands.
such
The
please.
as
is
a command and so
of
as:
be quiet!
or
(12)Somebody A first and
person
achieved
by adding
Do
be used
may
Let
don't
onto
create
me see. the
what
Negative
commands
front
of
Quirk
et.
al.
of
sentence
the
in
let
by placing
can be achieved
subject:
to
door.
the
imperative the
adding
close
sentence: call
front be
may Don't
go!
persuasive
imperatives: (13)
Do have
there
Finally,
firstly
mentioning: their generally
another
initial
are
glass. two
categories
exclamations,
placement
no subject-operator
of
which
a wh-operator, inversion:
resemble except
that
are
worth
wh-questions
in
that
is
there
-162-
(14) The
What a lot
second
formulae: (15) There
of
people
is
what
category there
are
What
about
some forms
that
still
The point structures
and to
types
them.
onto The
firstly
to
types
see
onto
structures
cognitive
a study
of
looking acceptance This
it
is
possible
to
match
an
in
am seeking it
is
speech
to and
theory
act
are
be
to
for
reasons
examination
mentioned
for
marked. discourse
decided
beyond
thesis
that
way of
be
will
view
I
the
instance, I
some
previously,
the
extend
would
how
show
an examination
to
sentential
the
in
act
able
Thirdly
is
involve
of
here,
support
propositions
be
to
able
necessary.
evidence
speech
range
communicated,
will
ideally
should
be
act
threefold:
to
possibly
to
speech
basic
match
the
sentential
is
chapter
why
hope
I
of
this
possible
structures
rejection
however
markers,
I
linguistic
section
such
see whether
auxiliaries
or
as:
basic
operators
for
such
the
Secondly,
modal
elements
identify
of
as:
additionally
to
exists.
various
archaic
and
is
whether
terms
types
survey
sentential
in
explain
such
call
say we lost.
to
that
evidence
p. 203)
cit.
wh- questions
exclamatory
employ
this
of
(op.
al.
house?
the
some irregular
it
et
irregular
also
Suffice
Quirk
certain
are
(16)
we met!
that
reasonable
limits.
5.3
Speech
In
this
questions
If
the
clearly
speaker
forms
complex p. 192)
cit.
a
simple
yes-no
be:
that
A question
Quirk
al.
et
call
that
quantifier
none'.
For
whereas
anyone
remains
modal
have
to
has a positive
least
someone
gives
neutral.
For
come last
(17)
Did
anyone
(18)
Did
someone com'
last
all,
hence
the
underlying
Quirk
example:
night?
are
al.
(op.
negative
when it
An example
one'
et
then
there
or
orientation,
is than
rather
a question
night?
However
positive
form.
an assertive 'at
of
P)).
with
to
first
be considered.
questions
next
have
auxiliaries
questions
know(S
want(S
suggests
example,
role
whthe
until
know something,
to
wants
consider
orientation. what
the
might
state
cognitive
declaratives
consider
we consider
interrogatives,
on
concentrate
leaving
commands,
when I will
play.
Structure
I will
section, and
section
more
and Sentential
Acts
a
the
has use of
'some
positive
or bias
-163-
(17)
remains
neutral, for
explanation cognitive be
might
is
speaker
is
the
Negative Quirk
et
once
believed
the
fact
cit.
P was the it.
the
same time
acknowledging form
second positive
with
The next
that
main
Tag questions
are
main
types(described
tone
is
you.
states,
we
should
believes
that
P is
I
believe
I
know
to
iii)
of
the
as
speaker that
-P
once held
the
be true
and
that
confirm
is
such
a
in
a
a change
thesis
now
-P
having
support
you
and at
the
on P matters not
combines
left
plus
to
order
a
is
This
yet?
the
(1974).
tag
question.
There
are
+ negative
with
a
question.
e. g.
You
this
explain
the
consider
is
by Sadock
assumption
possibilities
in
terms where
of
four rising take
cognitive
the
speaker
case:
that
P is
the
case,
and I want
know
to
you
(assert) P is
that
my ability
I know that
P is
to
speaker
question
interrogative
Positive
accept
duty
P matters.
disbelief.
above).
the
that
as an authority
Haven't
it
explicitly to
for
I
hearer
more complex,
his
orientation
analysed
In
it.
about
forward
e. g.
category
a reported don't
ii)
negative
is
to
to
but
secondly
that
reasons
evidence
hearer
the
and
P may not
good
putting
show
also
sugar,
i)
of
are
seeks
the
the
and wants
there
orientation, forms
to
similar
poss(-P))
words,
now has evidence
words, that
the
speaker
implies
but
case,
other
tentatively
state,
it
state,
phrase
orientation
respect
hand
other
now suspects
speaker
cognitive
A
In
bel(S
form:
surface
p. 193)
with
for
positive
form
P
that
be true,
state,
surface
on the
Once again,
true.
between
be a desirable a
other
P might
using
as an authority
P) but
state:
that of
agreement
with
hearer
confirm
bel(S
holds in
speaker
that
to
I think
to
to
of
know
to
and wants
In
terms
believes
speaker
orientation.
accepted
in
seems natural
The advantage seeks
(op.
it
then
orientation,
al.
and wants state:
it
the
acknowledges
poss(P))
saying,
generally
provides
bel(S
the
The
orientation.
orientation
If
positive
sure.
that
a positive
case,
effectively
firstly
which
the
has a positive
simple.
i. e.
using
know for
to
with
fairly
case, P is
by
question
is
is
the that
certain
want
questions
states
(18)
whe. eas
tell
the
the
you about
case,
and
I believe
to
this
(state).
say
case, it.
and I believe (inform).
that
you
that
it
have
is
my
-164-
iv)
believe
I
v)
you are
an authority,
it
is
correct
or not.
I
believe
that
you are
question
i),
that
P is
P;
on
it
thus
it
something
you can tell
(Tag question but
is
on
me whether
i).
I know that
it
is
something
on
that
P?
so can you confirm
iii).
but
true,
be the
to
appears
distinct
Tag
question
ii)
(19)
You don't
from is
case
knows that
can be explained
and is
authority
P,
but
an authority,
(Tag question
believes
I know that
which
which
Tag
P, but
that
hearer
the
is
by a combination other
speaker
an authority belief
of
and
cases. + positive
negative
the
where
tone,
a rising
with
e. g.
This
that
means
whether
it
question
i).
Tag
the
is
the
it
that
distinct
to
form
Didn't
invites
the
bel(S
and is
seeking
words,
by making
is
there
statements, than
the
stylistics
with
the
these
are
made
Epistemically,
tag
of
also for rather rather
the
What the
to
of
epistemically
e. g.
not
a certain example:
in
and it
this
dramatic
one of
speech
well. act
in
of
But theory.
as
In is
P)
in
other effect for
exclamatory
using
this
you but
disagreement,
has
a
something
be unwise
avoiding
effect
that
act
speaker
would
he do well
Didn't
may
response.
the
statement
bel(S
strongly
a negative
be a means of
He did
question
speaker
that
is
assumes
believes
the
that
something
speaker
speaker but
might
than
foregone
a
question,
An exclamatory
the
strongly
deadpan:
and
questions be)
to
hand are
exclamatory
an exclamatory
It
(assumed
other
agreement
that
is
tag
be very
to
appear
iii)
type
or
answer
sugar?
well!
H P)).
I believe
question
. is
agreement,
it.
i)
on the
... form
in.
indicate
to
to
where
hearer's
necc(bel
device
saying:
form
is
hand
other
know
to
-P and wants
a negative
You take
type
the
she sing
believes
strongly
is
confirmed.
e. g. to
know
want(S
(20)
and
be
will
Wh- questions
An interesting
It
the
on
that
It
or not.
questions
be used
conclusion. the
case
linguistically
appear
believes
speaker
cases.
Declarative similar
do you?
sugar,
iii),
question
expectation all
take
far
more is
effect
an issue
of
-165-
al.
The
other
op.
cit.
an
not
occur by
in the
(21)
is
use
of
the
that
(teacher
In
Coulthard
You,
at
don't, Don't
addition
to
the
This
politeness
Its
of be
an
e. g.
so many may be by
of
an
action
which
function
that
when
example:
in
serve
the
e. g.
formed
commands are
by the
of
they
as commands)
to
refer
e. g.
only
expresses
by
a theory
then asking
presupposed sentence
this
by
also
the types.
of
be a form
of
that
the e. g.
how
nor
question.
act,
not
terms act
just of
can
however
the give
some
satisfactorily
act
indication
no
e. g.
act
verbs the
underlying
a speech
the
in
speech
of
archaic,
speech
states
give
questions
represent
but
cannot only
think
a speech
examining
of
hospitality,
forms,
surface
cognitive
we simply
question,
of
thinks
the
of
to
indicate
to
element
desire
a strong
interrogatives
that
examination
of
to
now seems rather
a survey
example
If
the
without
use now appears
admonishment
force,
basic
but
cointreau.
for
chosen
imperatives,
persuasive p. 202),
cit.
perhaps
another
of
ways
also
category
primary
some action,
acts.
are
(op.
speaker
is
illocutionary
range
the
section
are
for
as an order
its
that
This
theory,
that
function
down.
a verb,
speaker
us.
Do pipe
corresponding
forms
this
(27)
explained
are
in
as a form
variety
there
types
Do have
without
out
the
window.
al.
to
perform
the
in
Negative
et
where
use
carry
nomination,
by Quirk
except
(26)
will
of
back
forms,
these
appears
hearer
toned
as:
wants
when they
a pupil).
Do go with
authority,
express
hearer
call
open the
sentence
(25)
to
a subject
the to
as such
other
may be
e. g.
(24)
(listed
do
auxiliaries
commands
such
subject
door.
a subject
and
pointing
use of
modal
no
be quiet. have
They may also
(23)
has
et
want.
You,
Sinclair
form
however
(Quirk
command
that
markers,
the
the
the
simplest
noteworthy
politeness
Commands may have (22)
is
epistemically
assumed
the
sentences,
shut
is
category
which
It
imperative
Please,
satisfies
of
verb.
Commands serve it
sentence
p. 200),
imperative
and
down
major
in of
particular The
cognitive
in
terms
cognitive us
reasons
terms
of
there
why
surface state of
its
states for
the
-166-
5.4
Modal
Auxiliaries
The hence
cognitive
modal
markers
of
state
cognitive
for
the
deontic
and
modal
Of
explain
some
existence)
to
be
However
it
is
because
theory
of
modal
a theory
auxiliaries
only
be
is
missing
something.
section
will
be
to
examine
the
types
to
explain
sentence
of
of
modals
are
missing
modal
will
may,
from
be
to
and
one the After
lexical
of
in
this
semantically
they
can
they in
example
able
taken
approach
states
these
requires
terms
are the
and
in
appear
as
that
wrong.
in
usage
which
for
noted
(or
auxiliaries
cognitive
been
has
It
signalling. that
sort
what
in
structure
them
of
totally
The
modal
use
structures,
cannot
it
surface
reason
to
ought
existence
then
simple
as
existence
the
verbs,
the
the
acts
language
explains
operators,
to
easy
the
sentential of
modal
important not
of
speech
of
variety
and
for
theory
state
an explanation of
if
all,
bound
arose
any the
of
includes
that
are
cognitive
course
deontic
uses
states.
logic
States
theory
auxiliaries
evidence
verbs.
and Cognitive
order
conveying
previous
or
section
commands.
Will
The future
Quirk
tense.
et.
denoting
a "colourless,
(1969)
that
state
function
is
tomorrow form
of
is
This
to
She
modal
will
no future in
sentences
to
et
the
dissolve
cit.
as
will
and that
the
will
arrive
the
habitual
e. g. reading.
while
p. 55)
the
Boyd and Thorne
as He
her
She crosses
sentence
(op.
al.
form, legs
describe
English
such
They also
her
cross
will
in
denote
to
However
tense
habitual
a simple
equivalent Quirk
reading.
is
p. 47)
cit. future.
neutral"
there
be used
some,
(op.
al.
make a prediction.
into
will
(28)
modal
the
of
to
according
give
four
legs
meanings
while for
the
will: i)
have ii)
another
Intention. see
iii)
Used in
Willingness.
you
Insistence.
cup of Mainly
when
I
requests,
Will
you
coffee? used
have
e. g.
polite
e. g.,
in
the
first
I'll
person,
e. g.
whatever
you say.
time.
He will
keep
going,
-167-
iv)
Clearly, the
Prediction.
Quirk
prediction:
specific
in
act.
will
dissolve
talk
for
the
person
of
the
modal.
meaning (29)
and the
The
of
(30)
You will
(31)
He will
willingness
has
the in
person,
e. g.
modal,
if
for
this
first
person,
I will
speak
in
to
appears
whereas
not
example,
it
is
possible
Will
You will Note is
the
first
person
forms
of
prediction
the
to
of
intention
rephrase
it
person
occurs for
any
leave
immediately.
He
that
the
can occur
by
is
difference
stress
the
on
by stressing
marked are
of
no importance
the
differences
between
For
uses.
its
have
to
law.
at
arrive
for
case
second
difference
and other and still
appears
denote
and second
third
and
the
denoted
be a linguistic
will
is
in
however
say.
you
first
the
sentence
The expression
my mind.
intention omit
the
and a universal
event
to
meaning person
first
as the
this
(32)
defining
sentence
insistence
in
insistence
to
possible
in
some role
asks.
insistence
and
denoting
will
him.
whereas
whatever
a specific
There
He will
e. g.
you ask.
meaning.
study
between
[he]
if
The differences
will.
the
die
will
you ask.
and third
going,
i. e.
plays
verb
has a different
intention
between
main
of
Aqua regia
e. g.
prediction, stop
interpretation,
the
keep
will
help
insistence
mainly
prediction,
you don't
Consider
if
first
the
the
the
The hero
e. g.
Habitual
if
help
person
In
Timeless
forms
three
forms
variant
second
hours
define
al.
prediction,
gold.
help
I will
person.
of
last
the
et
other the
use denoting the
polite
you have
another
cup of
coffee?
have
another
cup of
coffee?
uses, same
the
use it
is
meaning,
intention.
For
request:
as (32a): or
its
But time., it might
Please
use to
indicate
(33a):
The hero
(33b):
Aqua regia
(33c):
He talks
when used it
to
cannot
prediction: dies
in
dissolves for
indicate
hours
be paraphrased
example as:
last
of
act.
gold. if
not
intention,
be re-phrased
seems can the
the
stopped. e. g.
and still insistence
I'll denote
given
see you when I have intention, above.
neither However
it
-168-
(34): but
the
He keeps
meaning
suggests
(i. e., that
perhaps
denote
intention
context
of
current be
the
wo:: lds in
possible
in
true
make
The
model.
a future
sense
is
tense
to
poss
operator is
that
an
as
a
in
the
refers
to
put
when
accessible
from
intention
that
from
accessible
world
This
x).
will
(future)
world
arguably
is
modal
may describe
will
is
secondary.
of some
a future
However
the
are
uses notion
to
say.
intention
use of
other
appears
one.
something
its
to
Insistence his
principal
suggested
a possible
being
something
the
this
and
modality,
different. I know that
and that (1977)
Lyons
you happen
whatever
seems slightly
intention
observed
the
going,
the
current
world.
importantly,
More it
is
person. the
worth
examining
In
first
the
(but
prediction it
as:
will(do(H,
P))
iii)
will(do(x,
P))
first
these
of
do
But
to
... however
habitual I It
will
say,
animal for
animal,
rain
us no real
of
part
a
represents In
the
second these
that
states
two
it
are
cases
we are
the
is
of
On the easy
to
case
we are about
the
Taking can be
seen
forms
such
dealing
with
a prediction
or
If
for
described.
being e. g. it
Aberystwyth,
on experience. it
talking
weather,
abo". t a habit
then
see that
is
upon what to
in
to
of
statement
a
non-personal
consider
easy
whether
not
I
that
stating
so obvious.
and habitual
we
is
in
and making
a commitment
If
depends
talking
based
prediction
the
usually
does. I am making
weather, hand
other
predict
the
if
I talk
habits
a
about that
of
example:
(36)
When the
A prediction
based
problems
it
problems,
predictive
am referring
Then I am not
an
the
then
form
(35)
other
some extent.
will
example
the
first,
person blur
gives
I am making
P,
predictions, a
on the
form).
The cognitive
with
(do (S, P)
ii)
It
intention
habitual
the
theory
act
conjunction
however,
person
denote
in
will
denotes
will
speech
of
view
are:
intention.
to
operator
insistence.
will
third
of
point
third
may also
i)
will
the
the
denotes
represent
The
the
person
In
speaker.
person
from
for
the
cat
comes
on known third
person.
in
it
habits.
will The
sit modal
in
front use
of of
will
the
fire. gives
no
-169-
The
second
(37)
You will
indicates
(38) a
is
whereas
by
consistency first
the
it
person, and
in
the
between
the it
it
as is
indicates
an
do P in
a future
in
the
cognitive
of
the
modal
auxiliary
will
form
simple rhetorical
do
that
conjunction part
Hence, theory
the to
is
in
used
the
counter is
a in
made
the
second
a
third
a future
true
world it
person
speaker
that
operator
will(x,
P)
provide
by
has
speaker
the
of
done
a
When used
will.
the
with
been
there
be
P will
that
indicating
Hence
the
When it
done,
to
of
A
command.
authority P.
will
something
have
meanings
modal
is
be
to
the
out
speaker
invoking
world.
on the
world.
you do P?
Will
from
likely the
get
must
not
basic
a prediction
state
The modal
to
a future
insistence
P
indication
an
in
to
is
speaker
three
carry
the
world
hearer
used
to
...
is
using
authority
future
is
do P in
acts
when
differs
immediately.
it
that
insistence
do
will
the
leave
to
as
reluctant of
any
of
to
is
You
person,
commitment
hand
invocation
a sense,
intention
the
how this
examining
anticipation
other
saying:
In
in
hearer
the
that
hearer.
worth
be so good
issued
an
requirement
as:
as:
on the
that
command
is
It
you
is
out,
indicates
such
immediately,
such
Would
carried
a sentence
immediately,
request
command
more tricky,
as:
Leave
(39) The
leave
insistence.
a command such
and
is
person
hearer
the
be
can
an explanation
used
the
of
use
will.
The person
of
question.
or
internal
in
be used
may also
also
the
use of
with
the
first
meant
to
be
affects
When used question
as in
a question
the
form:
will
in
this
person
it
is by
answered
a the
speaker: (40) When
Will with
used
be a party
I the
third
person
this? it
becomes
a question
of
a
third
intention:
party's
he come this
(41)
Will
is
similar
This
to
its
use with
When
hold
the
second
form,
will
This
person.
may
be
P))))
want(know(S will(do(x sentences
evening?
as:
expressed
to
to
used simply
true
for
in
the
negative
negates
all
questions.
the
positive
in forms.
simple
declarative
The same appears
-170-
CAN
Quirk
et
(op.
al.
i)
Ability. your
For
Permission.
For
iii)
Theoretical
Possibility.
blocked
with
all
chair
onto
the
can lift the
the
In
to
poss(P).
Permission first
permission: P))
where
go
a
unclear questioning
the
permission.
In to
as
content you
him
the
(43)
Can he juggle
statement second
of
same applies
is
There
with
the
the
be
may
the
table,
the He
second
person,
the
deontic
informal
made,
or it
do P? For
is is
speaker
does
he
Is
it
person
the
do(H
want(S
the
upon
for
request as:
second
simply
interrogative
the
the
means:
as
represented
an
depends
denote
not
propositional to
able
do
P?
or
example:
Permission) (Questioning
skittles?
unstressed
I can leave
third
be
but
three
form,
I want
ability). denotes
can
use of
any time
can denotes
to.
In
You can go.
permission:
a the The
person. between
a distinction
I shall
possibility,
to
unstressed for
can
lift
use
in
In
it
(Request
permission:
person,
pass
I can
represented
being
speaker
permission
declarative
set
Can
the
case: as
pP.
person
Can he go now?
can
ability,
third
in
we simply
may be
is
request
(42)
the
you
ability.
treated
for
The snake
onto
Although
denote
This
now?
whether
give
is
hearer's the
if
poss(e).
chair
interesting
schematic
whether
the
table.
an
it
is
P
it
ability:
permission,
is
I
operator
possibility
person, Can
can:
modal
now?
example:
denote
to
to
Theoretical
pP.
form
the
onto
represent
operator:
the
winter.
You can lift
stressed
order
the
by the
persons
table,
is
modal
Can I leave For
by snow in
three
chair
for
uses
You can translate
example:
can be represented
used
three
example:
ii)
Ability
In
list
it.
to
mind
get
Will
p. 52)
cit.
consider
this
theoretical
possibility
when examining
the
modal
and may.
MAY
Quirk
et i)
al.
(op.
Permission.
cit.
p. 53)
give
For
example:
For
example:
two uses
for
may:
You may stay
out
until
o'clock. ii)
Possibility.
It
may be a rough
passage.
eleven
-171-
However,
there
possible
intention:
(44) This
I may come and visit be considered
should
be represented When
remains
more
pP.
Whereas
I can
In the
the
it
person
second (46)
In
it
You
third
blur
form
be less
to
but
by the
in
as
correct,
distinction,
the
permission
operator
first
the
may
person
odd:
rather
denotes
more usually
intention.
possible
In
permission: me any time
may come and visit it
can
I like.
denotes
person,
and
a polite
can be represented
... I may appears
person
possibility
may is
considered to
It
I may go any time
first
the
generally
may denote
form,
declarative
from
permission,
formal.
denote
also
P))).
has tended
usage
still
(45)
is
can which
modern
be distinct
to
indicate
to
used
may can
use,
you tomorrow.
poss(will(do(S
as:
to
opposed however
be a third
to
appears
also
seems rather
like.
you
odd to
use may to
denote
possibility
in
third
permission: He may leave
(47)
The more normal
now. may is
for
use
denote
to
the
person: He may be rather
(48) If first
person (49)
It
it
is
I
May
also (50)
is
interrogative
form.
The
(Spoken
There We
The snake
M62.
(Actual
is
a similarity
theoretical
about
be
to
leave
now?
used
in
should
summer's
pass
the
make
person:
second
the
distinction
the
clear
in
person
possibility:
can get
pass
on a fine
(52)
talk
third
and actual
The snake
permission:
the
example
theoretical
(51)
way in
this
to
following
for
in
then
now?
May he be permitted appear
between
in
used
doesn't
It
leave
forms,
interrogative
used
exclusively
you.
with
use of may in
the
we consider
annoyed
blocked
day)
by snow in
winter.
Possibility.
Theoretical -
iaay be blocked
the
by snow,
so lets
go by the
Possibility). between
someone having
possibility
is
theoretical the rather
and ability.
possibility
ability
to
like
talking
do
something, about
an
and object
-172-
having
the (53)
This
Aqua Regia be
could (53a)
Hence
can dissolve
re-phrased
Aqua Regia can link
we
perhaps
do something:
to
ability
as:
has the
reason
dissolve
to
ability
theoretical
the
explains
gold.
to
possibility is
why can
used
gold. ability than
rather
this
and may.
SHALL
Quirk
et i)
(op.
al.
Willingness third
p. 54)
cit.
on the
three
part
For
person.
list
uses
the
of
modal
in
speaker
He shall
example:
the
of
the
shall.
second
receive
and
is
what
his
due. ii)
Intention first
on the
part
For
person.
the
of
speaker,
only let
I shall
example:
in
used
the
you know in
due
We shall
do
property
in
course. iii)
Insistence
35b.
exercise good
order
use
of
The speaker
in
appears
to
something, done. P
the
or
gets
least
at
is
person
only
marked (i. e.
by
a verb
receive
... subject
In
do such be the
subject
will
denoted
by use of
in
and such beneficiary
the
second
the
speaker,
epistemic
it
in
in
this
of
a thing.
In
the
some action.
operator
want:
to
do
will
be
in
shall persons. the
first
form
it
dynamic
a
verb For
some action). to
or
You
shall
injunction
latter Insistence want(S
is is
injunction,
as opposed
is
of
used
with
... insistence
of
third
legal
agent
it
see that
to
usage
and
or
the
something
above,
conjunction
maintain case
intention
why the
the
of
because
intention
the
the
is
part
interesting
see that
analysis
subject
shall
former
the
to
Insistence,
shall
the
tenant
of the
will.
use of
where
The
example:
the
the
part
on the
speaker's
explains to
confirms with
the
expresses
perhaps
the
on
interchangeable
of
effectively
merely
the
maintain
is
person
intention
the
restricted
Intention
shall
example:
willingness
and third
an expression
and this
form
this
denote
to
shall
The speaker done
The tenant
For
throughout.
second
be
injunction.
legal
or
that
case,
the
is
best
do(H P)).
-173-
SHOULD,
OUGHT and
Quirk
et.
i)
(op.
al.
Obligation your
ii)
Putative
iii)
iv)
have
certain
use in
to
a larger
move to
Real let
point
view
of
cognitive
any importance.
between
the
first
use and the should
the
should
Ought
may
be
interchangeable (54)
by
is
use
to
applied
that
they
An example
These
5.5
unravel.
love
your
mind,
as if
a
first
use link
strong
very
regardless
a statement
of
of
obligation
is
for
is
necessity a
or
appears
separate
case:
by now.
"they"
are
be
to
finished is
operator
previous
obliged
to
obliged
obligation
Thus the is
necessity
or
there
finished
affairs.
but
necc(P)
use:
obligation,
obligation
the
to
must.
denote
that
situation
used
to
denote
the
up
being be
could
example
yield
result
or
is:
obligation
be something
must
compulsion
11
O'Clock.
is:
necessity
There
or
obligation
be home before
must
can be represented
wrong.
by:
and necc(P).
The difficulty
to
than
however
have
is
necessity
You
The Logical
a logical
I should
P)).
of
)
that
the
only
operator to
point
An example
of
cases 0(...
be
may
(55)
I am sorry
finished.
are
necessity.
of
This
as:
Must
(56)
almost
a state
expressed
to
specifying
is
It
now.
ought
should,
ought
not
to
used
with
They
only:
states, There
represent
seems weaker
The use of
expectation.
This
all
way to
use of
cover
be home by now.
you change
obligation
... by: O(do(x
represented
The obvious
always
you.
Should
have
is
should
person
conditions.
to
which
You
me kno-T.
of
I/you/he
should:
house.
appears
person:
to
first
the
of
expressions:
happened
Contingent
uses
They should
when you cough.
should
just
four
necessity:
use after
Formal
the
) list
cit.
and
mouth
this
From
MUST
and Pragnº-itic
with
and pragmatic If
we are
to
Use of
Modal
Auxiliaries
modal
auxiliaries
is
function
(Leech
1987)
accept
the
cognitive
that which state
they is
have
both
difficult
approach,
then
-174-
it
to
seems reasonable
communicate
cognitive
that
from
goes
give
main
intention,
pragmatic
modal
auxiliaries
we look
possibility
operator
poss(p)
poss(do(x
P))
human or (57)
in
of
then
all
in
the
the
animal Babies
all
case
case
of
of
willingness,
and necessity.
some
state
possibility the
using
or
Ability
some action.
performance,
ability,
may be represented
these
to
able
auxiliaries.
theoretical
ability,
any theory
indicate
to
are
to
used
be
also
modal
obligation
at of
must
but
possibility,
prediction,
first
are
forms,
use of
possibility,
insistence,
If and
of
auxiliaries
form
surface
the
of
uses
to
act
theoretical
permission,
to
speech
modal
have modal
that
states
some explanation The
assume that
situation tends
to
or relate
e. g.
can usually
by the
walk
time
they
fifteen
reach
months, or
(58)
leopoard
The
when we come to
But
blurred,
and theoretical
ability
the
objects,
becomes
possibility
e. g. (59)
This
inanimate
describing
sentences
between
distinction
trees.
can climb
lamborghini
The
suggests
distinction
the
that
sports
possibility
is
dependent
therefore
seems
correct
can do
150
between
ability
is
what
upon
and theoretical described.
being
both
describe
to
m. p. h.
the
using
It
operator
)
poss(...
. Possibility
is
itself
when I
different,
slightly
say
for
example:
(60) I I
am not
so much
intention,
Note
use
I
of
the
committing
hedged
This
allows
i)
Ability:
ii)
Theoretical
iii)
Possible
iv)
Hedged predictions:
The second
as
so,
myself.
There
may also
be
used
possible
a is
another
to
express
tomorrow.
may rain us to
this
represent
poss(do(S
Possibility:
modal
group
of
group
as follows:
P))
intention:
the
do
e. g.
predictions,
It
use of
It
poss.
operator
(61)
the
to
my ability
without
call
will
tomorrow.
expressing
but
possible what
may leave
poss(P) poss(will(do(S
P)))
poss(will(P)) will
modal
in
these
meanings
examples. are
intention,
insistence
-175-
and prediction. (62)
I will
An example
You will
Finally,
It
of
insist
When
I
the
hearer
fact
that
In
as:
prediction: modal
not
will
to
ill
to
want
we
the
hearer.
the
of
that
convey
it
compare hearer
the
about
tricky.
more I believe
part
if
a prediction
with
leave
the
was way past
its
I
e. g.
because
tomorrow
with
appears
to
insist,
I
when
the
on the
can
that
date.
conveyed
that
fall
I
secondly
better,
is
firstly
case,
a refusal
unstressed,
Prediction
insistence
the
this
P)).
will(do(S
do P,
to
I make
You will
of
being
accept
will
sell-by
purpose
is: However,
understand
auxiliary
Whereas,
is:
want
not
when
(65)
prediction
something
does
order
now.
will(P).
on
I
car
intention
of
represented
morning.
tomorrow.
rain
representation
is
is
move that
will
intention
of
tomorrow
an example (64)
be
leave
insistence
of
(63)
The
An example
the be
is:
prediction
the
the
is
will
same
speaker
not
will
P)),
insistence
when
is
on the accept
What
stressed.
will(do(H
indicator
stress
always
is
modal
P).
That
except
that
the
to
fact
convey
the
part
of
the
can
and
on the
a refusal
being
will(H
or
used,
is
hearer.
may be indicated
Permission
Examples
can.
whenever
like
you
aspect
politeness
in
which
can
ought,
should
denote
Or to
put (67) Ought
(1975) is
and must.
0(P).
(66)
Must
You told
I will
deal
that a set
are
before
a
consider
the
denote
to
used
first:
must
before
leave
us
ten
with
obligation: must
obligation,
must,
modal
leaves
is
used
e. g. o'clock.
e. g. ten
o'clock.
can be defined
circumstances.
If
as descriptive I
White
however.
much more problematical
oug'zt of
use of
state
obligation,
is
there
shall
This
with
to
you must
be back
and should
in
commonly
me that
You must
by the
are
may be used
someone under
suggests
owing
modals
I
necc(P).
as
represented
However
leave
can
Six.
Chapter
indicated
usually
You
now and
as pP.
than
or more polite
consideration.
in
own right
Three
obligation.
needs
auxiliaries
formal
You may leave
:
that
is be
as
modal
more
may be represented
its
Necessity
may is
that
such
pragmatic
to
is
The suggestion
may.
by the
say:
of
what
-176-
(68) Then
You ought is
what
hearer,
it
being
is from
missing
Looking and sort
of
the
speaker
request
do
being
For
little
him
something.
We find
that
form
of
the
relationship
analysis
enables
it
possible
is
the
ask
is
between
permit
of
May you
and
terms
the
to
a more
of
speaker but
party,
it
himself
complete
pragmatic
the
between
hearer
up
logical
the
in
think
a third
form
we
with
permission:
no
build
to
If
used.
for
or
some
interaction
the
and
requesting
there
us
to
uses
provide
conjunction
possible
himself to
to are
in
pragmatic
their
auxiliaries
denoted
for
for
sense
it
example
permission
auxiliaries,
auxiliaries
is
that
something a
the
modals.
modal is
for
good
suggests
these
use of
modal
then
is
p. 140)
cit.
write-up. is
that
This
the
the
modal
sentence,
hearer.
the
at
way
the
of
(op.
states,
the
that
and
makes
directly
cognitive
use
the
of
to
aspect
of
action
may
circumstances.
to
the
person
a set
of
Ph. D.
your
something
suggests
account
consider
is
as White
more
relation
finish
expressed
logical
than
rather
(should)
to
to This
... picture of
uses
of modal
auxiliaries.
Consider
the
and permission
in
the
to
speaker
hearer
modal
declarative
a third
or
the
speaker
all
three
to
that
state
personal
pronoun,
(69) The
dog)
possible
speaker
to
persons.
When we come to
the
the
denote
to
is
ability
When consistent
used
though
more
sense
the therefore
permission, if
permission
is
that
the
also is
the for
possible
(for
permissible the
with
non-
garden.
our
is
also
ability
in
any it
non-personal
three
the
of
is
it
consistent,
pronoun
to
tends
as I pointed
though
possibility,
in
theoretical
be out and
possibility
speaker in
to the
Can you
the
first
and third
ask the
hearer
the
has been granted question:
When
pragmatic.
second to ...?
person,
do P.
its
form,
interrogative
the
he can do so in for
for
meaningful
meaning
in
between
ability
of:
around
state
are
blurred. is
can
case
ability
distinction
slightly
permission, no
theoretical
the
previously,
the
denote
for
used
an act
can run
can to
use of
in
except
(Your
It
and such has little
not
is
It
Permission
persons).
uses
he can do so for
but
hearer).
the
such
is
It
permission,
(to
party
main
sentences.
himself
grant
its
can:
auxiliary
speaker
requests
person,
it
to
grant
The pragmatic
sometimes
makes himself
may be used to
it
is
is
use
used
aspect
of
ask it
as a request
-177-
I shall
and speech
used
in
In
the
permission.
(or
possibility is
and it
meaning If
hand,
ability
are In
to
using
to
reduce
many of
the
logical
Studies
work discourse
it
why
he the
request
it
is
not
permission
and
form. of
a model
with
speaker seems
operators
modal
between
interaction
auxiliaries.
modal
Markers
indicate
markers
their
type
discourse
to
some role markers
has been
(The
stated
In
play.
in
have
seems
Jewish
an
the
1975),
Coulthard
might
based
some of
when analysing and
very
is
account
culture
of
(Sinclair have
her
very
a
gives
example
although
use,
use is
their
that for
(1987)
as I observed
what
to
used
to
order speech
act
appropriate
point.
Having speech
but
reason
himself
by the
caused
analysis
that
do P,
authority,
containing
use of
seem to
the
grant
one particular
However,
only
conjunction
states
of
summary of
a
in
Schiffrin
from
part
mean
do P (assuming
the
interrogative
problems
account
the
may is
hearer
person
modals
the
markers
starting
the
that
discourse
to
if
other
necessarily to
perhaps
becomes
hearer
the
based.
observations
is
has meaning
do P. On the
ability
hearer
the
form,
discourse
of
comprehensive
in
of
way.
and Discourse
much culturally
theory
This
cognitive
Acts
has the
do so).
and pragmatic
Yorker).
intention).
I have been given
only
not
to
of
and hearer
explain
hearer
this
do P does
for
this
do P,
to
possible
no second
The analysis
New
denote
use as modals
that
ability
it
request
is
Speech
their
or
to
only
possible
state
the
to
the
because
there
5.6
I have
interrogative
the
permission,
hence
i. e.
in
used
meaningful
to
possibility
used
earlier,
to
permission
see that
mean making
modals
is
can and may in
permission
to
the
described
denote
I may hand cannot have this the other on ... interesting is so. to speculate why this
is
granting
does
of
indirect
when I examine
to
it
may be used
...
do P,
to
checking
form
person
compare
I am granted
I am able
on
Six
do P.
to
permission
first
to
I can
permission.
declarative
the
as I have
interesting
has
Chapter
acts.
May is
It
in
this
consider
pointed act
theory
to
several (Chapter
deficiencies One),
I went
with on to
the
Searle
examine
model the
role
-178-
that
speech
the
contrasting introduced cognitive is
there
idea
state
(or
translates
the
appropriate
cognitive
the
of The
effect),
his
The
two
to
use
Searle's
taxonomy
and those
state
the
of bel
can be given
in
description. is
act effect
in
the
presumed
(the
rules
by
out any
of
hearer
the
way.
between
and
speaker P.
I
used
describe
to
the
may be roughly
broken
belief
assertives
express that
a
express
hearer
the
to
up
the
of
want
intention.
may express
class
communicates
the
to
communicates
cognitive
a
hearer
state
a cognitive
form
the
is
S
...
also
possible
to
communicating
intention
in
will(do(S In
an
form
... a directive
want It
its
that
S
whereas of
acts
The commissive
assertive
act
carried
that
groups:
is
some proposition
speech
those
an
by
operators
distinct
Thus,
and may be inferred
transmitted
deontic
remaining an
speech
of
into
represent
be marked
terms
action
the
act
speech
is
is
that
speech
preferred
to
need
basis,
directives. -
speaker
this
in
On this
possibilities.
if
effectively
My suggestion
the
form
be transmitted that
comprise
of
and
modal
epistemic,
that
a
surface
act
to
act
form.
effect
state
cognitive
speech
I
system,
an associated
is
the
a particular
not
this
the
suggest
convention)
may be expressed
hearer
into
by does
response
the
and
governed
I with
states
perlocutionary
are
then
form.
use of
is
with
that
Three
communicating
Within
which
state
structure,
Chapter
act
hearer.
states
surface
cognitive
preferred
which
the
In
The illocutionary
cognitive
of
discourse
as an
act,
act.
"use"
the
of
act
the
associated
from
explanation
to
states)
cognitive
the
in
play
approaches.
surface
of
hearer
(or
the
to
a speech
speech
states
explanation
of
speaker's
that
terms
the
of the
rival
a locutionary
still
becomes
have
might
two
the
realisation
the
theory
act
addition
the
of
speech
commissive
a
act
as
form
P)) to
the
between
authority
think
cognitive speaker
states and
there
positions
are There
hearer.
are
of four
possibilities: 1.
The speaker
example
if
is
I state
in
an undisputed that
position
my son suffers
from
of
authority. atopic
For eczema,
-179-
then
I
would
unless
of
not
The subject
practitioner. to
rise
a
position 2. fact
can
(70)
becomes
(Client
3.
The position
of
academic
argument.
individuals
formal
in
this
adopt
the
authority
a
recognised I
role
to by
(perhaps
the
acts
to
where
two basic
category subdivided Questions
that into
less
is
the
This
example
want
on the
other
(S do(H P))
an
of
term
above. for
It
have
can
states
themselves,
types
of
a want
broad the
a want.
first
directives. questions
classes:
cognitive
those
Looking
- the
is
situation
of
have
a
politeness
the
superior upon
effect
the
cognitive
that
I stated
a
communicating of
all
at
the
These may and
state:
hand communicate
to
want.
act,
speech
I
speaker
does
a dramatic
cognitive
on
position
one
and
of
a
authority
level
states
in
describe
to
authority
cognitive
to
case,
second
polite),
more
also
the
the
change
have
a formal
where
formal
stop.
this
(1982)
in
is
It
example (to
In
is
an
an authority
of
knower
However,
example
may be
being
Berry
speaker
on a subject.
For
individual
position
primary
in
sometimes
hearer.
by
example
a bus
at
may
to
the
one
For
authority.
an
blacks
penny
want (S P) Requests
a
margins?
niceties
used
and
communicate
communicate
for
margin
authority
than
where
communicating
two
in
authority.
disputed.
opposed
the
used
polite).
conveying
and those
three
social
subordinate
Returning
belief
more than
(as
terminology
might,
less
to
speech
there
both
is
utterance.
act,
Four
circumstances
another
It
general can give
speaker
of
dealer).
of
the
described
play.
his
speech
a position
know
authority
have
that
in
yet
situation over
of
the
to
son's
proposition
position
the
authority
She
situation.
describe
respect
position
certain
of and
to
with
exchanging that
position
choose
that
authority
is
party
as
P matters),
belief
substantially
two
refined
held
stamp
worth
Neither
the
my
fact,
the
a question:
to
4.
be
to of
alter
dispute
to
matter
an undisputed
subtly
noteworthy
used
is
are
is
be
authority
hearer
assertion
It
mutually
of
The
happened
they
course
hearer
the
expect
state:
requests.
be
-180-
5.7
On A Taxonomy
For
have
There
been
in
speech
acts
example
Searle
states
be
der
Veken(1985),
than
taxonomy.
not
Van
appear
baptism
or
should Van
and in
at
One of form
any
der
Veken
(op.
that
acts,
cognitive another
acts
should
performatives
should
a
actions
such
that
as
) and
cit.
act
have
I
taxonomy.
Wierzbicka(op.
) have
cit.
do not
that
verbs
not
Perhaps,
etc,
verb-based
to
appear
argue.
a verb-based
that
the
dependent
is
that
act
speech
with
similar
syntactically different
as very
by
conveyed interpretation
upon the
two
example,
indeed
taxonomy,
on the
I made a mess of
the
putty
(72)
I made a mess of
the
caviar
on the
to
a joiner
forms
a conversation
boasting.
speech
hearer
speech
in
community.
Taking
is
dependent in
described During
terms the
speech
the
act
the
what
to
problem
(72)
of culture
how
says,
within
as a speech therefore
and
can only
acts
the
have
be seem
might
but
be also
perhaps
more generally,
judged
boast
to
as a request
speaker
this
is
utterance
propositional the act. can
language Boasting only
be
norms.
cultural of
this
theory
in
course
the
according
upon
of
of
Concorde.
some speech
Or putting
categorised
expressed
highly
terms
reacts.
is
act
in
just
window.
work.
therefore,
Perhaps, not
how the
studying
up do-it-yourself
some botched
at
content
of
part
categorised
a
Austin's
(71)
a look
in
speech
apologizing
may be interpreted
sentences
of
attempting
actions
with
For
and
consider:
(71)
as
is
For
taxonomy.
terms
certain
using
example:
utterance.
declarative
example,
may be heavily
some utterance, of
for
speech
problems
taxonomy
of
that
regret,
categorised
the
in from
verbal
be
for
verbs.
an Harnish(1979)
acts
say
are
expressing
all,
of
described?
be
taxonomy
act
variety
verb-based
How else
also
their
acts
speech
as
Bach
refrain
verb-based.
there
such
considered
included
way,
the
speech
speech
to
excommunication
of
extensive
shall
not
this
Additionally,
Searle
I
is
be
to
an
express
verbs,
in
described
these
to
That
largely
given
chosen
rather
such
a taxonomy
describe
to
attempts
of
have
have
I
several
terms
and
Wierzbicka(1987) Because
Speech Acts
thesis, relation
I have been to
discourse
concerned structure
with and
-181-
have
arrived
cognitive upon
There
states.
cognitive
states,
difficult.
It
expressing
belief but
wants, it
poses
up
possible,
given
cognitive
states,
of
be
the
(see
act
of
he
only
amount flexibility
This
two.
as
expressing Furthermore,
acts
an
some
of
that
n in
act
i. e.
states. in
be
might
comprising
there
description
the
a taxonomy
makes
it
express
cognitive
that
to
ought
act
still
make
However,
i. e.
act,
that
action
there
an
to
according
Three).
flexibility
of
types
as
the
and
can
n-1
uses
be very
would
sentence
speech
of
a speaker
taxonomy
a
acts.
that
description that
this
into
Chapter
believe
I
presupposed
base
types
acts
states
description
a certain
act.
to
that
sentence
up speech
of
to
declarative
categorise
the
if
think
cognitive
the
utterance
a speech
to
because in
to
I suggest
be
of
flexibility
ought
however,
speech
might
notion
be a temptation
indirect
presupposed
difficult
some
for
the
on
might
splits
description
the
based
interrogative
only
idea
of
easy or
problems
set
is
is
that
Another the
a theory
at
of
difficult
a very
undertaking. I in
believe
also
terms
of
pairs,
even
undertaking
5.8
out
an explanation how
speech
more
Consider schemas
pairing
speech speech
speech
is
in
described its
(or
acts)
heart act
theory
in
discourse
to
pairing
first
of
Four.
These
from
to
the
play by
just
adjacency
if
in
both
described
in
i. e.
how it
is
schemas. go
back
to
describe
the
discourse
structure
by
cognitive
state
one rejects rival
The conversational pair,
act
The notion
acts,
a common factor Two.
a
provide
discourse
for as to
attempt
in
to
structure,
we need to
together.
pair
perhaps
speech
schemas
connected
the
makes
firstly
some explanation
these,
have
acts
Chapter the
give forms
surface
acts
this
blocks
as building
can be used
binds acts
thesis:
act
speech
effectively
this
speech
speech
be described
only
Generation
in
of
the
can and
Utterance
of
things
Chapter
of
that
role
Model
do two
derive
to
acts
difficult.
and secondly
possible
speech
an acceptance,
to
acts
structure,
certain e. g.
Summary and Formal
I set
at
that
which
matches
Chapter
Four.
models analysis very
the
the
that pair
of
notion
of
a
of
to
of
discourse
approach closely
The adjacency
to
has the pair
-182-
has
four
be adjacent
to
required sequences
are
separate
characteristic they theory
a first
adjacency
pair
typed.
first
parts.
This
state
theory
appears
that
Furthermore,
is
there
level
called
a
exchange
consists
to
applies be
would ordinary (1981)
situation
conversation
feedback in
that
everyday
response.
It
discourse
analysis
to
approach
pairs. analysis p. 26)
teaching
first
the
is
part
However, from
the
this teacher In
strategy.
inappropriate,
Burton
and
Sinclair
feedback
the
Chapter
The
pedagogic)
Coulthard
and move
be
should
initiation
of
common
the
(1975,
model
feedback
is
and
in
discourse
a pairing
there
to
detail.
feedback.
the
an
state
adjacency
only
the
of
because
exchange.
modify
with
us that
appears
the
be
would
order
leaves
in
(and
conversation,
This
eliminated.
of
where
state
cognitive
introduced
which
i. e.
parts
explained
teaching
third
corresponding
idea
and
The
cognitive
the
Coulthard
and
of
the
component
pairing
by
produced
ordered;
much greater
the
moves
conversational
are
appear
pairing
the
a sound
to
model
or
response
a classroom
suggests
may
in
Sinclair
initiation,
essential:
they
to
meta-speech
be
theory.
may be partly
notion
three
of
applied
a natural
the
includes
also
of
are
insertion
-
this
In
the
with
example,
that
specified
the
must
part.
parts
incompatible
not
for
is
parts
Finally, This
second
is
models,
true.
some
cognitive
Four
and a second
also
are
is
parts
apart
terms
to
applies
pairs
though
different
It
part
is
this
theory,
adjacency
component
in
theory
component
this
two
sequences
this
two
again
of
have
in
the
speakers,
the
(insertion
explained
Secondly,
acts).
firstly
characteristics:
ground
and
between
the
analysis
conversational
approach.
basis
The may
in
be paired
first
part
build
a discourse
combination
example
hearer
responds
The Formal
or
of
based
of
speech is
this the
effect
the
steers
act
to
when speaker that
acts, form
asserts
he agrees
that
with
part.
acts
speech by
presupposed
second
on speech pairs
is
In
order
that
units. P
to
build
we need to larger
the
and
A the
P.
Model
Finally, surface
state
of
structure
to
a cognitive
virtue
rules
simple
theory
cognitive
influences
that
state
the
of
form
the
time
has come to
may be generated
from
attempt
a particular
to
describe speech
act
how
a
schema,
-183-
however
incorporation
the
next
chapter.
the
Bach and Harnish
in
the
is
the
speech
other
the
words
in
generated
the
I
the
form
(PD).
speaker
speaking
Directness,
of good
I do
to
reason
Presumption
the
The
speaker
so,
use a direct
base
and
form
from
to
is
will,
that
presumption acts
and
commonly
both
e. g.
accept it
that
and
as before, into the
avoid
is
In
the
assumption
the
speaker from
the
but
I
shall
a
Presumption
of
added
complication
of
indirectly
to
opposed
chapter.
form
surface Directness
of
meaning
sentence.
as
next
am making
a
assertive
remains
chosen
otherwise,
a direct
generate
as an
non-literally in
its
speech
Literalness
of
have
is
of
a declarative
of
the
linguistically,
Presumption
I
incorporate
will
a thing
Presumption
Directness the
such
set
represented
Communicative
The modify
is
use
(LP) becomes:
determining
Presumption
a basic
share are
of
them for
adapt
in
until
presumptions
Presumption of
wait
Si.
Linguistic
how they
to
order
E generated
expression
the
perceive
there
capable
to
basic
the
The Linguistic
schema
and hearer
in
have
will
modify
slightly
act
speaker
that
model
presumed
of
forms
need to
Model.
Hearer
referents
In
I shall
Generation
The
indirect
of
the
Presumption
unless
there
using that
which
will
speak
speech
act
is i. e.
directly, Si.
schema
The
therefore:
is
there
unless
form
utterance
a good
Ud to
the
perform
do
to
not
reason
act
speech
Ste. In
to
addition
The speaker
In
hearer
understands
effect
on the
other
of
of
the
will the
there
the is
speaker but
true,
believe
him etc.
speech
act
cognitive
certain This generation
allows of
is
the
the
hearer
same time
state us
is to forms
to being
conveyed
define
the
from
the
of
fact
when
believe
that
speech
force
that is
direct act
the
Si. the
of
an
making what not
he is
everyone what
effectively
The effects to
and
preconditions
that
recognises
convey.
act
speech
understanding
to
The illocutionary intended
surface
the
example,
wants at
be a shared
An understanding
act. for
the
of
context
the
force
illocutionary
preconditions,
must
speech
includes
act
assertion, saying
the
the
Si that
act
some speech
performing
communicative
words,
mechanics
in
assumes
(PP):
Presumption
a Pragmatic
I require
these,
are
that
a
hearer. for
strategy schemas.
Here
the
I shall
-184-
recognize performative
basic
three
only speech
acts);
speech
assertive
declarative
sentential
construction,
imperative
sentences
or
intention,
which
Direct
Strategy:
intentions the
have
typically
which
directives
form
which
Finally
by
a
either
is
there
be expressed
usually
(excluding
speaker
declarative
a
type.
sentence The
acts
questions.
would
forms
act
authority
i)
to ii)
form: (modal)
add
Ui
modifies
to
form
act
if
Speaker
recognizes to
respect
Si.
From
P. he
this
declarative
modifies
his
form
(Ui)
any.
with
(Ui)
to
P.
to
respect
feelings
own
form
surface
relationship
reflect
Speaker
with
modifies
operators,
authority
reflect
P.
and
Ui.
Speaker
form:
Directive
Speaker
form
sentential
Assertive
speech
beliefs
wants,
hearer
the
with
some basic
a basic
his
recognizes
some proposition
relationship
recognizes
generates
to
respect
with
Speaker
Speaker
of
perception
and
P.
this
In proposing
is
that
I
speech
required
to
I directly research
change or
of
an expression
believe
their
onto here
theories
of
surface
forms
is
this
regret
be to
forms.
examine
grammar
systemic for
example
the
the part
of
utterance
in
assertion
these
acts
An unexplored model
and how they Halliday
modal
for
P.
about
this
of
reflecting
critical
a
because
justifiable
own sentential
would
(see
into
in
occurs
The last
may be made to
that
assertion
an
in
form.
surface
it
addition
part
that
claiming
that
the
that
final
changes
reflects
strategy
example,
act
may be
it
what
because
example,
I am not
an important the
for
later,
claiming
plays in
added
about
no assumptions
processes,
happens,
merely
am
clauses
auxiliary
are
what
actually
parallel.
order
human thought
clauses
auxiliary
modal
the
in
happens
actually
I am making
strategy,
direct (1990)
in
do not avenue
relationship the
structure
and Berry(1975)).
map of to of
-185-
6.
Indirect
6.1
Speech
Acts
Introduction
One of
the
greatest
been
the
problem
of
In
this
always into
the
theory.
Searle's
work
theories
of
indirect
speech
accordance
the
structures
"use"
behind
parties
positions
of
indirect
of
in
speech
that
the
is
some types
speech
acts.
I
is
involves
to
hearer
first
place
directly,
to
obstacle
hearer
be able
may not the
Therefore
servicing to
being
object
act
service
than
requested
if
the
with
if
there
the
request.
For
the
request,
the
the
request object
the
out
not
In
whether
making
finding
both
a request.
he has the
whether
or even
by
associated
are
request,
involves
speech
face
making
or
rather
driving
the
of
as knowing
something,
giving etc.
the
out
carry
indirect
the
the
Brown and
what
such
states,
cognitive
in
Chapter
indirect
of
is
there
that
in
of
a loss
understand
argue
shall
able
the
easy
of
one
in
acts
chapters,
developed
avoidance
acts"
to
speech
previous
acts
certain
requests
have
of
when uttering
certain
hearer
because
attempts
section,
hearer
arise
and hence
is
this of
avoid
that
in
a variety
made to
An example
be developed
with
for
threatening
politeness
connected
come about
must'be
then
acts,
idea
the
examine
acts
developed of
be
acts
examine
on to
going
to
will
my ideas
model
"face
call
factors
may
with
we accept
Levinson
the
speech
develop
the If
this
indirect they
before
that
speech
initially
shall
has
theory
act
indirect
appears
The idea
shall
particular Three.
which
I
authority.
I
Speech Acts
acts.
Firstly,
reasons.
speech
incorporate
section,
on Indirect
that
facing
how to
politeness,
is
section
difficulties
in
request is
the
example, hearer
an
may not
service
the
some requests
such
to
want
request. We cannot the
as passing to
want
lift because describe allow
treat
to
salt,
home from
might
why a way for
not
certain both
not
On the
want
to
strategies parties
to
know too service for keep
other well
our
face.
hand might
are
not
requesting be
a
difficult
I intend
request.
requesting
hearer
the
expect
reasonably
a request.
someone we don't
for
equally,
requests
we would such
service
they
all
used
to which
-186-
Other of
indirect
knowledge
additional
example,
when
because we could
simply
important
in for
what
how
speaker
the
is
the
P
or
simply
a speech
act
type
expects
the
hearer
set
a cultural
with the
act
speech
be
used
set
of
in
(bel(S
P))
may lead
to
socially
conflict
that
requested P then
Again
this
we have is
Rather speech is
more
acts
the
hearer what
undesirable than
in
logical
think
terms to
of think
hearer act
the
an P
on
P.
the
what
the
speaker is
It
also to
respond
the
Furthermore,
pair). be
the
same
in
act
speech
is
Additionally
what
may
may not
speaker
of
to
response
speech
for
accordance have
I
This
most form
form
to for
of
a pairing
discourse
conflict, indicates believe
form
how speech
I examined
Four,
doesn't the
the
P).
P,
to
speaker
and
requirements.
to
this
if
how the
that
(in
avoiding
Even worse,
do
may lead
in
for
of
block
hearer
in
do
states
and the
the
a
which
hearer
the
about
hearer
as
the
what
a description
or
the
(such
reference
whether
it
(that
Chapter
undesirable
strategy
the
as
states,
P,
over
the
perform
makes an utterance
speaker
itself
is
what
called
plan.
cognitive
states
cognitive
to
politeness
as a building
acts
which
that
with
of
to
or
schema
via
related
plea
with
believes
strategies
are
Furthermore,
hearer
half
of
cognitive
an authority
believe
to
of
(i. e.
P
convey
second
that
everyone)
to
act
believes
or
associated
(the a
all,
P
P, then
of
After
type
speech
a set
about
the
a description
are
do
to
aware
form.
conclusion
or
with act
it
the
knows
has
attempting
there
to
what
is
each
knows
matters
speaker
associated
perfectly
For
act.
hearer
the
with
is
existence
a speech
so much the
not
that
speaker
hearer
matters,
is
with
came
on
authority
hearer
the
of
it.
associated
the
perceives
may plead
the
a plea
contention
concern
with
Q as an indirect
making
has
associated
we
assert
request)
speech
states
however
making
The
because
may come about
pleading,
Q. If,
of
reason
acts
example
that
he believes
that
P (-bel(H but
wants
(1983)
and should
of
will
calls
are
not
want
to
incompatibility.
be avoided.
reason
avoidance in
as these
This
has
does
it
P)).
do P (i. e.
hearer
the
P
that
conflict.
of
does P) and the
of
the
a
to
the
acts
exist
hearer
Leech
where
may well
the
speaker
may
Certain
for
there
cultures),
speech
structure.
an argument;
of
acts
terms
for of
making face
of
most
threatening
a strategy
indirect acts,
for
avoiding
it
-187-
undesirable
pairings is
request
which
Brown
and Levinson
be the
speaker
hearer
who
examine
6.2
cognitive
turned
of
notions in
this
but
(1969)
first
Searle,
to
in
face?
when making
According it
1987),
the
grant
conjunction
to
it
the
is I
request. the
with
a
to
appears
many societies,
the shall
cognitive
Speech Acts
the
proposed
notion
he substantially
that
work
in
he cannot
Indirect
Searle
(1)
face,
all,
chapter.
of
According
and Levinson
politeness
Theory
acts,
(Brown
if
Searle's
a
who loses
who loses face
After
states.
down,
model
loses
model
state
of
a speaker the
Can You pass
in
revised the
may utter
indirect
of
speech (1979).
Searle
sentence:
salt?
and it
mean to
not the
pass
Searle the
in
by
says
he states
theory
the
shared
mutually
non-
and
of
of
powers
general part
he
than
more
hearer.
the
means of
understanding
The ideas
principles
of
an indirect
to
order
in
op.
this
together
hearer,
hearer
to
it
not
will
chapter
much missing how Searle
understand
cit.
of
that
except
together,
the
background
factual
shared and
co-operative
with
an
inferences.
make
p. 32).
presented
approach
speaker
part
cit.
op.
acts, mutually
the
on the
(Searle
(Searle
on the
that
and of
ability
brought
the
with
act:
speech
linguistic
both
speech
of
information
In
request
include:
conversation
this
a
p. 32).
cit.
op.
act
a
indirect
on their
relying
inference
and
rationality
Furthermore,
an hearer
the
to
of
way
together
linguistic,
Searle
understand
information,
background
speech
to
order
communicates
speaker
actually
as
p. 30).
that
states
but
salt.
1979,
(Searle
as a question
merely
detail
pp. 33-35).
Searle
cited
the
(2)
X:
Let's
go to
(3)
Y:
I have
to
utterance the
study
pair:
movies for
will these
visualised
be illuminating
would
disagree
tonight.
an exam.
to
study
greatly
with
be filled
in.
ideas
being
his
example
-188-
The
that
question
constitutes
a rejection of
the
the
statement
of
puts
together
rejection
p. 34).
Step
1:
I have to
statement
secondary
the
Step
2:
I
that
therefore
his
A relevant
first
the
the that
rules
(or
theory
state
not
4:
in
his
But
a relevant
This great
pragmatic
relevant
then
at
the op.
(facts
exam
and
conversation (Principles
terms
limits
following
it.
the
this
outlines
namely utterance
The sequencing
their of
ordering
of
two
The cognitive 3,
expressed
but
it
by
the
can be made.
one of
these,
and so was
1 and 3).
steps
that the
namely
Ui must
by
is
acceptance
step
state
something
relevance
as it
the
of
out
carry
from
chapter,
theory
structure.
was not
(inference
implicitly
a tacit
or
that
response
is
affected
not
we have
cognitive
utterance
step in
principles,
specifies
the
response
detail
that
of
literal
important
allow
his
and are
us to
that
By assuming
pairing,
a discourse
within
Speech Acts).
of
Searle
pair,
an adjacency
also
(Theory
type, act
rejection,
acceptance,
clarification.
here
Yet
acts
in
which
proposal
Step
of
would
it
explains
be
etc.
alone
stand
acts
notion
needs
speech
of
notion
speech
more)
the
He
he has made a
an
in
be one of
particular
a
predecessors.
the
either
must
that
of
speech
immediate
for
and
(Searle
response
study
to
discussion,
step is
response
accepting
Y, and in
intended
response further
counterproposal,
the
is
remark
arrived
down.
turned
co-operating
act
act. have
the
Conversation).
Co-operative
This
Y is
that
assume
describes
illocutionary
he has to
that
effect
utterance
illocutionary
primary
being
to
made a proposal
conversation).
is
is
Y's
Searle
how X might
of
proposal
the
3:
X the
fact
the
X know that
suggestion?
of
about
Step
his
of
proposal
his
that
cit.
how does
a reconstruction
conclusion
of
is:
arises
will
idea
of
be discussed conflicting Relevance
and sequencing.
be relevant
maxim states
that
to
utterance
when the
Uj
primary
-189-
speech
is
act
important), type,
(the
a proposal
then
giving
the
secondary
to
rise
of
if
the
should
be
relevant
relevance
maxim,
but
the
sequencing
maxim,
indicates
that
statement
of
proposal.
Therefore,
is
which
the
a direct
is
not
there
an
must
as a response
a
speaker
doesn't
The
obeys
the
to
obey
appear
making
a
appropriate indirect
to
proposal.
it
of
A
statement. to
response
be an the
so
certain
interpretation
is
speaker
not
principles.
second
because
is
be of
must
pragmatic
response,
sort
appropriate
act
actual
second
this
speech
it
to
name given
a mis-match
response
the
exact
a
interpretation
To summarise:
i)
Utterance
1 is
ii)
Utterance
2 must
sequencing
(say).
a proposal be relevant. it
maxim,
Secondly,
be an appropriate
must
to
the
response
to
according
a proposal. iii)
Its
direct
interpretation
not
relevant
because
is
it
that
or
it
indicates
not
the
violates
an
it
that
either
sequencing
appropriate
is
maxim, to
the
does
not
response
proposal. iv)
There
must
violate
the
Step
5:
Therefore,
that
his
remark
differ
from
between
the
6:
Step
pragmatic
time
of
to
movies
the
single
in
the
it
with
of
to
utterance the
the
the
a large
far
amount
I want
to
(5)
1 will
be studying
study
for
conclusion,
auxiliary
of
an exam. for
not
conflict
the
only
reason
as such.
a
large
and I know that
going
of
takes
time
relative
is
information
responses:
(4)
4).
apparent
is
must
to
a
information).
more precise
correct
modal
this
evening,
background
something
the
point
an exam normally
a single
background
factual
form
for
takes
(factual
is
there
can be used
to
of
Assuming
says.
2 and
steps
can be interpreted
studying
normally
The notion here,
act
relative
evening
from
but
he
illocutionary
primary
principles,
speech
that
than
more
be made because
I know that
amount
means
(inference
one
can
why an indirect
interpretation
maxim.
his
relevant,
literal
inference
This
sequencing
he probably is
his
be an indirect
an exam.
in
the
utterance the
namely necessity
rather
is
fact
used,
vague that that compare
-190-
Both the
of
the
above
by Searle,
one given
be drawn
is
that
he cannot
that
utterances
7:
Therefore
study
for
an exam in
8:
Step or
any other in
predicated speech
9:
both
that
can
implying
thus
on the is
commissive,
go to
(inference
condition
the
propositional
from
the
to
ability
movies
Step
acceptance
content
10:
and
6).
of
a
proposal, the
act
(theory
of
perform
condition
Therefore,
his
in
indirect no longer
was in
act
in
certain
on to
goes the
Sentences
Sentences
iii)
Sentences get
iv)
v)
Sentences
the
this
the case
then
position,
secondary that
the
3 would
step
chapter,
there
that
conventionally
are many
used.
sentences
indirect
are
directives.
He
identifies
directives: H's
ability
S's
wish
you to
do A.
concerning
H's
doing
H's
desire
concerning
Would
Sentences should
in
occurs
to
A.
perform
e. g.
Can
or want
A.
that
e. g.
H will
do
A.
Would you kindly
my foot?
off
e. g.
to
probably
salt?
concerning
I want
e. g.
of
concerning the
are
acts
indirect
of
you pass ii)
see in
examine
performance
categories i)
speech
act
primary
is
point
Were it
pair.
the
the
accept
5 and 9).
steps
speech
As we shall
consistently
and 8).
from
act
has the
that
something
illocutionary
primary
speech
apply.
Searle used
the
why indirect
reasons
1,7
steps
indirect
the
speech
cannot
(inference
proposal
example,
position
he has said
probably
from
the
this
he
that (inference
proposal
reject
I know that
Therefore,
consequence
In
than
acts).
Step
Step
inference
the
by necessity,
cannot
one evening
the
friendly
else.
he probably
A preparatory
on
do something
do anything
Step
because
probably
Y has to
less
seem noticeably
leave
you mind
not
concerning inanediately.
making reasons
to
or willingness
do
A.
so much noise. for
doing
A.
e. g.
You
-191-
Sentences
vi)
another.
Searle
then
types
op.
Searle
that
their
of
provides
these
of
I ask you to
facts
certain
in
inside
elements
take
off
to
pertain
hat?
your
these
sentence
do not
question
have
an imperative
force
meaning. for
as support
can be linked
sentences
one
p. 39).
cit.
The sentences
as part
Might
e. g.
states
(Searle
1.
embedding
this
denial
the
with
of
fact
the
statement
that
any imperative
such intent.
e. g. (6)
I'd
to
do it
it
This
or
(7) This
Might
(7a)
Take
2.
The sentences
imperative The question a
case
of
inherently as:
ambiguity
saying
that
course
in
question
all
3.
indirect
but give
the
to
states
issue that
of
utterances
systematic
relation
for
an exam"
with
Searle.
do
you to
or ordering
off
as it
just
could
as
e. g. hat?
your
that
are
... forms
hearer
not
more
polite.
as between
ambiguous
one and it indirect
indirect
such
are
simply
types
are
types
such
inherently
non-
deliberately
may be
as hints
not
act act
speech
argue
one could
is
speech
an
force.
and a non-imperative
these
certain
is
former
the
a difficult
of
Notwithstanding
used
force:
force is
I ask you to
to
ambiguous
type
of
non-ambiguous,
ambiguous,
take
illocutionary of
Might
Searle
is
you
hat.
your
difference
only
asking
have been
as easily off
I am not
feeble
an imperative
I ask you to
just
could
you do it
be particularly
with
but
me,
do it.
you to
be linked
for
that
requesting
seems to
argument
do this
you to
telling
or
easily
The
like
"a way out".
Facts
1 and
2,
these
are
standardly
directives. there
is
and directive between
and rejecting
acts
an utterance proposals.
between
relation
a systematic in
a way that such
In
this
as "I
these is
there
no
have to
study
I
agree
respect,
-192-
4.
The sentences
in
are
not,
in
not
idioms
is
not
question
have
literal
question
the
ordinary
sense,
idioms.
5.
To say that
they
are
to
say they
are
not
idiomatic.
6.
The sentences
they
are
7.
In
they
not
in
indirect
also
cases
have
still
and as having
that
8.
of
When
one
illocutionary point
literal
are
meaning
uttered
as
and are
requests,
uttered
with
meaning.
these
point
is
sentences
uttered
a directive,
of
a directive,
of
sentences
literal
their
which
requests.
these
where
in
utterances
literal
the
literal
the
the
with
primary
illocutionary
illocutionary
is
act
also
performed.
Searle been
categorised
categorised
cases
develop, to
go
I to
separate speech
hope the
felicity
and
the
refusal
are
systematic.
be
to
at for
then
the
to
a variety
of
the
I
as the
in
treated
that
that
explanation
shall
refusal
an
entirely indirect
that
recognising
reasons.
furnish
to
is
such
have
that
cases
movies
cases
be
to
the the
the
time
same
to
go
that
show have
not
attempts
conditions
certain
do
between
In
to
able
movies
arise
Searle
difference
but
way, acts
the
that
suggests
conditions,
and preparatory
in
an explanation
terms
give
which
of to
rise
generalisations: 1.
S
either
can make an indirect asking H's
concerning 2. or 3.
or
whether
that
S
can
sincerity
the
by
directive) condition
a preparatory
by either
directive
by
directive but
obtains,
not
asking
condition
content
propositional
make an indirect condition
other
do A obtains.
S can make an indirect stating
that
stating
to
ability
(or
request
stating
by asking
whether obtains. the
that
it
whether
obtains. 4.
S can
whether except
make
an
there where
indirect are
the
good
by
directive or
rea; >on is
overriding that
H wants
stating
that
or
reasons
for
doing
or
wishes
etc.,
asking A, to
do
-193-
A in
which
Although
these
these
are
explaining example,
that
the
and not
the
the
are
no explanation analysis
indirect
etc.
set
of
6.3
A New Theory
speech
acts
treated to
the
as
an
ways
in then
More importantly,
there
I shall
be
concerned
Finally,
Searle
producing
commissives for
ones
In
exist.
also
performed.
the
to
similar
generalisations
a statement
indirection
indirect
of
a directive,
for
are
include
to
a
directives.
the
Speech Acts
Indirect
of
becomes
acts,
no way
in
some thought
mechanisms
states
generalisations.
being
meaningless.
is
result
obtains
speech
analysis
that
giving
almost
himself
these
on
some proposition
why these
indirect his
extends
is
of
why
6.3.1
wishes
there
rules)
circumstances
Without of
(Searle
are
content
act?
statement
is
with
there
constraints
speech
generalisation
Introduction
It
play
be developed potential
in
determining
is
that
Additionally,
an
acts
There indirect
are
i)
Indirect
ii)
Indirect between
iii)
Indirect
be
be made to
will of (at
to
maxims will
because
of
or presupposed
be
undesirable. indirect
why
explain
this
of
that
mostly
maxims
deemed
socially
are
thrust
theory
arise
acts
reasons
pragmatic
and the
pragmatic
either
as forms to
appear speech
speech
that
role
form
surface
attempt
used
the
many
are
The main
performed.
indirect
that
there
that
all
examine
between
states
of
are
be to
will
conflicts
cognitive
speech
acts
speech
however to
first
be noted
should
indirect
work have
generalisations
what
the
why
observations
propositional
indirect
my
may be valid
what
For
which
H wants,
ask whether
do A.
to
that
he can only
case
politeness. four
least)
types
potential
of
acts: speech speech pragmatic Speech
acts
that
arise
that
acts
arise
because
of
because
authority. of
conflicts
maxims. acts
that
arise
because
of
politeness
considerations. iv)
Indirect
Speech
missing
cognitive
acts
that
states
arise
because
presupposed
of
additional
by a speech
act.
or
-194-
The
first
authority
The
toned
uses
(8)
I suggest
Searle's
you look
A:
Shall
(10)B:
we go to
I have
to that
response,
but
direct
the
conflict
is
reason
why the
set
additional
plead
speech
take
the
of
unaware
of
a violation illustrates
from
Saigon
the
at
pulling
(Maltby
out
the the
hearers
to
it
of
to
form when
of
we
some
moral
sense is
hearer
the
which
or
direct
the
form:
a surface
of
in
the
such
hearer the
to
want
what
the
do
formula
The example
fall
the
troops
be airlifted
speakers
are
One Vietnamese:
(12)
Another:
I have
(13)
Another:
I helped
(14)
Another:
I have
an aunt
(15)
Another:
I have
gold
(16)
Another:
They'll
Take me with look!
a letter the
kill
you!
(The direct
CIA. in
New York.
I can pay. all
they
find
here.
of are out
pleading
do):
(11)
X,
circumstances:
The American
Vietnamese
is
but
to
above
depicts
which
war.
obvious
do X
them to
maxim occurs.
1989)
Vietnam
is
missing
their
he repeats
happens
and Boublil
(hence
a
pleading;
to
wants
"pie informative"
the
the
at
do P because
we want
If
say?
and thousands
country
to
lead
speaker
usually
end of
example
reason
knows that
speaker the
of
when
an appeal
could
hints
a
Y.
of
why the
what
occurs
them
be
and hence
that
because
for
with
a
down.
arises
this
one made requires
indirection
a good
form
hearer
the
seems impolite
state
only
might
reason
does
what
Taken
might
direct
the
"no"
turned
that
we plead
do X because if
as the
Consider
there
its
In
However,
being
act
tonight?
such
is
cognitive
reason
but
Please
for
is
someone,
duty,
unaware.
of
to
overlap,
an exam.
response
proposal
That
reason.
for
appropriate.
with
below
in
speaker
on planning.
work
many ways
movies
a proposal
presupposed longer
no
then
in
The way out
up.
indirect
An
the
study
demands
then
Sacerdoti's
at
a
e. g.
categories
Sequencing
of
where
example:
(9)
is
cases
down orders,
and third
second
includes
category
form)
-195-
In
this
have
they
it
case
speech
is
self
different
acts
that
evident reasons,
everyone
used
that
state
Speech
Acts
and Authority
are
happens
so what the
is
but
indirect
that hearer
why the
reason
leave,
to
wants
should
do P.
6.3.2
Indirect
One
type
discussed
arises
is
in
as
a question
of (see
is in
by
rising
a final
(17)
in
et
to
certain are
assertive
It
is
they
at
Whereas Is a
quite
at
fit
and
distinguished
is
question
inadmissible,
are
assertive e. g.
eat?
apply
not
but
when
so much
They
are
possibly
related
they
are
indirect
because
direct
in
questions
an authority
questions.
as
use
them
a subtle
way.
request
for
may not
speakers
certain
is
hearer
the
is
function
yet
when
hearer
the
but
that
from
as Quirk
only
thus:
appears
"yes"
P is
and the with
the
"no"
but that
cognitive
to
as
a
cit.
p. 195).
as a
foregone
(op.
appears
true, fact
or
function
to
state
question
that
well
al.
at
takes
speaker
in
is
which
Yes or No,
explanation all
form
question
I believe
is
a
declarative
question it
be
to
eat?
questions,
functions
Hence a declarative
This
tag
differ
P true?
the
seems The
act.
that
knower).
primary
possible
a question
confirmation,
was described
there
yes-no
forms to
speaker,
in
declarative
that
the
of
and they
all
of
except
to
to
seem
(Berry's types
indeed
a declarative
that
had anything
over
on P matters
of
non-assertive
questions
authority
type
had something
You've
(18b)*You've
an
type
it
hearer
the
headmaster?
state
because
Declarative
this
P when
situation
and
a statement
seen the
(1973)
character (18a)
to
that
been
already
intonation:
You've al.
for
exceptional
form
that
Four),
has
that
act asserts
In
Chapter.: form
an
identical
speaker
authority.
linguistic
question
speech
the
when
a position
special
Quirk
indirect
of
They suggest conclusion.
mean:
can you confirm? such
a form
state
of
theory.
question
exists
-196-
6.3.3.
Pragmatic
In
order
maxims
result
decide
just
conflict
maxims,
Politeness
to
determine
in
indirect
what
with Grice
The
Maxims,
first the
Cooperative
how the
speech
acts,
application
of
we first
there
maxims
Speech Acts
are
of
pragmatic
all how
and
to
need they
may
other.
(1975) given
just
pragmatic
each
and Indirect
broad
heading
Principle
is
idea
the
postulated
'The
of
of
of
Cooperative into
subdivided
a set
pragmatic Principle'.
four
categories
of
maxims: i)
Quantity.
Give
the
1. Make
right
your
amount
information:
of
contribution
i. e.
informative
as
as
required. 2.
ii)
Do
not
make your
than
is
required.
Try
to
make
Quality:
your
contribution
more
contribution
one
informative
is
that
true:
i. e.
1. Do not 2.
Do
you believe
say what
for
say that
not
to
which
be false. lack
you
adequate
evidence. iii)
Relation:
iv)
Manner:
Be relevant. Be perspicuous;
i. e.
1.
Avoid
obscurity
of
2.
Avoid
ambiguity.
3.
Be brief
4.
Be orderly. (1979),
Bach and Harnish them
in
their
the
added i)
ii)
following
stage
the
of
Sincerity.
of
in
Morality. that reveal, does hearer
speaker's
that
is
the
not
not does
They
contribution
to
the
type
to
appropriate
to
has
attitude
speaker in
speaker
not not
in
direct not
reveal ask the
wish
the
speaking, abusive,
speaker
does does
Three).
contribution
offensive,
The
is,
Chapter
that
exchange.
The
is,
speaker's
a communicative
The
Politeness. that
iv)
The is
in
and included
maxims
maxims:
useful
exchange
Gricean
the
(described
Model
Sequencing.
prolixity).
unnecessary
adopted
Inferential
sincere iii)
(avoid
expression.
speaking information
for
information
hearer done etc.
to
do
the
exchange expressed.
behaves vulgar
politely,
etc.
behaves that
is
ethically, he ought
he ought something
not that
not or the
-197-
If
we consider
relevance
first
that
follows
bears
assumption
what
before.
gone
is
It
indirect
when it
before.
Sequencing
certain
set
Sequencing
of
Chapter
Four.
answer
is
follows
a question
from
if
even
convention
rather
than
follow
the
pairing
of
occupies
the
to
has
something
is
has
gone
gone
that
a
before.
discussed
acts
primary to
has
what decide
what
an
what
us to
speech
natural
that
making
in
then
position,
decode
to
attempt
is
that
that thank
can
be
indication
may
sometimes
of
the
answer
used
as
is one
an
what
"Very
of
a
is
not
standard
with
the
being you? ",
thank
you",
a sort
"Not
the
certain
are
is
There
given.
where
of
well
a compromise:
that
acts
"How
to
response
is
you"
speech
an answer
an answer
bad
some
indirect
that
type
example
"Really
in
play
demands
demands
gives
hand allows
must
politeness
house
way
other
into
come
obvious
where
to
as
as an answer.
in
An
sincere.
no relationship
is
used
that
bear
and it
may
type
determine
acts
a question
expected,
or
which
speech
If
Sincerity
half
on the
results
convention
to
is
This
all.
some relationship
used to
also
appears
of
so
of good" is
response
inappropriate. Quantity in
principle has
than
it
that
been
in
This
is
of
indirect
to
be
the
only
maxim
almost
for
direct
manner
that
Politeness
Several (1990)
an
for
acts
in
indirect
act
from
point
is
adding
of
in
view appear
Manner
is
it
the
maxim layer
an extra
a
Five.
Chapter
obeying
is is
inclusion
that
outlined means
obstacle.
acts. its
has
and
likewise
argue
could
possible
speech
this
However
has
speaker
hearer
the
this
explain
overcome
speech
criticised. one
the
of
information
the
truthfulness
assumption,
where
be
to
of of
overcome.
Face
attempts example
and
as
indirect
has
and
Quality
direct
the
speech
whereas
difficulty
correct
hearer
the
to
where
plan
importance
been
often
the
co-operative
more
attempted
less
importance
certainly
Using
of
acts.
has
justification
6.4
probably
minor
that
helps
that
speech
of
in
basic
give
inference,
obstacle
information maxim
(1983)
plan
of
to
useful
Allen
terms
a potential
supplied
sometimes
for.
asked
computationally identified
is
interact
have been made to
describes
four
explain
alternative
politeness. views
of
Fraser
politeness.
-198-
The
first
each
society
more
or of is
view the
has
less
states
explicit
is
or
of
who derived
Be clear
ii)
Be polite
of
a)
Don't
b)
Give
c)
Make A feel
pragmatic
to
discussed
by
Leech
gives
be
no
be measured. (1983)
illocutionary
speaker's
view
This
was
applied
by
the
level
of
of
which
maxims:
goals greater
extends
the
of
politeness
maxims
are
scale,
optionality and
measured
the
distance
social are
further
approach
(1987).
Levinson
(MP),
rational
Brown
self-image,
it
face;
however
order
to
some acts
resort
both
parties
to
Fraser
(op.
contract
view
are
the to
cit.
cit.
seen as the is
to
certain
Brown
of
p. 59)
define
face
basic
to
threatening that
strategies
best
They maintain and in acts, enable
face. )
also
puts
associates
forward
deference
the with
conversational linguistic
form
1981).
(1990)
a
to
claim
non-distraction.
face
a model
consistent
face-threatening
such
and
and who is
positive
interest
intrinsically
how
exactly
view
seen as
an MPs mutual
of
of
authority
vague.
and negative
and rights
effects
using
maintain
which
& Nolan
Kasper
be in
will
individuals
(op.
face
preserves
minimize
face-saving
is
negative
personal that
somewhat
These
cost-benefit the
details
however
he
maxims.
scale,
The
work
summarise:
the
scale.
face
to
scales:
indirectness
the
face
but
the
Leech's
individual
six of
and Levinson
Positive
whereas
suggest
is
who has positive
agent.
territory,
is
made
extensively between
goals.
below,
sets
been
distinguished social
into
the
scale,
measurements
A
detail
five
on
has
approach
his
and
how
of
theory
whose
in
maxim
mention
This
described
(Fraser
extra
second
maxim
maxims.
following
the
The
a context.
conversational
of
behaviour,
certain
in
thinking
consisting
good
system
is
person
prescribe
which
options
politeness
these
norms
in
Impose
this
scale
social
1986)
sub-rules:
However
will
(Kasher
view
of
that
the
calls set
norm set
a way
Grice's
i)
the
social
rules
Fraser
what
(1973)
With
the
a particular
affairs
basis
Lakoff
is
these
of
points
out
that
there
is
no
satisfactory
-199-
definition
of
two
things:
firstly
society.
This
a
etiquette,
society
drinking
soup.
Japan
to
guide
for
it On the
loudly
He has
Slurping they is
safer
in
air
to
The
explanation
of
definition
pragmatic all
or
to
have
express
maxim
approach
cultures.
Gu
the
is
that
has
more
leads
call
it
to
suck
linguistic do
to onto
a
second is
desires
wants,
seem
four
postulated
the in
etc.
One problem do not
an
with
politeness
maxims
has
a
because
do with
to
addressee.
(1990)
would
west,...,
politeness:
the
we
is
down.
beliefs,
to
in
manners:
the
this
and
in when
(1984)
soup and not
approach
one's
acceptable
in
norms
noise
usually
either
linguistic
with
what
anything
language
as
favourably
upon
on table
one's
known
example
a
Smithies
reason,
cool
maxim
make
on
say
by
These
for
looked
vulgar
tea
polite
to
is
that
considered
pragmatic
is
society
whatever
same time
to
noodles.
to
necessarily
language
manner
of
habits.
of
imposed
sometimes
another,
rude it
a combination norms
eating
to
culture
Western
one's
concerned
of
for
sip
is to
regard
hand,
for is
the
behaviour.
politeness
following
the
don't
norms
of
a bowl
in
hot,
at
behavioural
other
liquids
are
certain
considered
slurp
Chinese
etiquette.
to
one
is
is
that
with from
it
suggest
aspect
contradictory
British
use
regard
particularly
may be
Such
I
politeness.
a
with
the
to
hold for
maxims
Chinese:
i)
the ii)
iii)
of
address.
iii)
The
Tact
maxim
iv)
The Generosity iv)
a
members
for
British
into
their the
according see
position
members
to
fourth, -
In
seniority:
the
use
from
correct
goh - fifth.
the
uncles
generation are
uncles
first, Then they
the
and jee are
in
important
a much finer
of
Leech's
important.
very
example,
they
Hokkien, tua
is
to
according
particularly
in
For
and whether
family.
to
same
is
identified
and language.
by family
the
naming
which
are
example
culture
addressed
in
less maxim
address
society
important
is
maxim
more or
are The
Chinese,
to
maxim - it
form
definitions.
elevate
oneself,
other.
The Address
and
maxim - denigrate
denigration
The self
Family
way
and aunts
below, family aunts
- second, identified
in
than
are
according or
married numbered
are sar
- third,
either
as
-200-
family
members
in-law,
chim is
male)
in-laws:
or
as
fourth
spouse
be see-koh
would
third
example, his
sar-che,
aunt
koh - aunt,
- uncle,
For
- aunt-in-law.
known
Similarly,
the
teow
(the
uncle be
would
and her
- unclethird
sar-chim.
husband
be
would
see-teow. The the
on
notion
of but
universal, doubt
cast
I
indicates
Although and
its
the
Brown
cultures
There and In
Levinson
third formal,
It
members
daughter
guests,
the
but
of
face
is
In
another
before
as
that
to
language
a
important
and
don't
fit
Hakka
and
do
quite
into
the
parents
This
in
it
would
for
her
senior of
consists where
rude
considered seen
the
lack
of
the If
seniority.
being In
some living
"call"
of
be
for
correctly.
castigated
and
" a ritual, order
face
lose
would
be
meal.
a
fairly
daughter
the
...
of
is
son)
to
rice
the
presence
which
daughter
the
then
daughter
merely
the
Hokkien
with
the
(or
of
member
this,
in
groups
uncle
eat
family
each
concerned
daughter
eating
mother
not
to
absence
of
manners.
No
involved.
example,
friend
in
giving
his
girlfriend
of
his
absence
girlfriends
for
their
up would
not
customary
to
her
she
a male
and
rice,
fails
brought
that
noting
viewed
a dinner,
one
aunt
family
address
her),
is
her
must
(of have
be
or
with
an
eat
daughter
politeness
inadequate
be
to
donsider
family
a
"Father
the
also.
worth
Malaysian
appears
example:
would
of
saying:
loss
For
(perhaps,
abroad).
1987,
seems
all
it
of
individuals
two
between
relatives
aspects
face
between party.
be is
(primarily,
society
Chinese),
interaction
face
As
in
linguistic is
a much
element.
Chinese
it
face
is
there
conference
for
(1986)
Ide
a volitional
therefore
language
a
so.
Japanese
acts,
society,
as
entirely
model.
Chinese
speaking
of
of
cannot
however,
are
in
about
definition
Chinese
In
universal.
is
this
Pragamatics
speech
and
that
primarily
indirect
almost
this
discernment
of
based
described
less
IPRA
is
is
that
and the
at
Levinson
and
clear
claiming
work
on
have
they from
a form
effect
explicit.
her
Levinson
and
discernment
this
all
far
idea,
to
data
Brown
and
is
of out
explain
face
on this
pointed
her
Brown
it
level
greater
of
approach
the
or not
is
presence
a former
discusses
a male of
face,
his
In this
girlfriend. she is
friend,
whether
a matter
for
he
seen to
girlfriend,
way, face.
lose
discusses
him and his
with
girlfriend
his
he In
former loss
of
-201-
face
does
come into
not
In Malaysian to
the
Failure
taken
as a snub.
party
would
arrival
and
his
habits
his
friends
would
before
Clearly,
of
a later
not
face.
However, Levinson
society some
of
B asks B has
himself
face.
of
to
ask
examination. they
lose
her
front
of
reference the
the
face
are
often that
seems unlikely
is
which
someone a question If
they
have
hence
uttered
to
such
these
face
the
face
only
were
A face
party.
threatening
in
Despite and
so.
Brown and
such
speech
loss
or
definition)
Brown
form
always
with
another
as the Chinese that,
all Levinson
are
acts.
indirect
speech
acts
and
threatening
acts
described
by
as acts
indirect
in
about
their
answer
that
independent
Japanese
is
never
have
society
in
performance they
acts,
speech
totally
are
threatening
a question
realise
gain
not
used
party.
by
problem
some of
An act
a third
of
is
it
society,
face
fit
of
face
indirect
to
Chinese
that
examples
only
privately,
case
front
described
strategies
to
is
such
a reflexive
and Levinson
Brown
husband
in
used
face,
in
environment,
In
not
two
consider
almost
does the
face.
of
something
it
it party.
is
party,
got
third
a
A would
often
he Levinson's
face.
the
a third
A.
of
This
Many of
(by the
B for
of
society,
however: knit
front
until
definition
this
knowing
in
and
of
their
with
face.
when performed
Levinson
is
presence
himself
definitely
Brown
culture.
is
him
on
wife
and
waited
but
work,
Chinese
the
given
model
clearly
of
it
in
another
guests.
left
Brown
yet
a loosely
the
politeness,
it
not
by
and
as
in
she
of
His
To castigate
be
or
of
already
so
a favour
Returning
however,
he had
simple
rank
with
date,
with
and
friends.
wrong
as
same
off
interesting
his
in
face
of
the
place
an act,
front
when
his
A upbraids
act
telling
at
environment.
acts
threatening
wife
face,
in
model
threatening
wife
quite
giving
place
departing
pub.
lose Such
of
So although,
takes
the
pub
the
presence
to
threatening,
that
said
B is
that
him
the
face
that
in
out
so.
the
of
be
would
find
the
something
not
academic
at
and
is
is
individuals an
to
a loss
there It
to
make
face
involves
only
off
his
guests
be seen as impolite
do so in
give
meet
doing is
to
see departing
to
customary
to
not
to
him
sought
definition
as
went
furious
was
home
However
man arranged
is
do so would
to
be a failure
forgot
then
it
society,
gate.
A
it.
say
failed,
asked.
The
an then same
-202-
does be
not
apply
presented
reasons,
but
maxims,
speech
cognitive
states.
6.5
their
British
is
that
of
order
2.
3.
Leech
(op.
A makes
B do
ii)
A stops
B from
and
are:
conflicting
some very
of
conflict
of
presupposed
States
simple
p. 112)
cit.
variety
speech
describes
acts
and in
conflict
but
X,
B tries
doing
but
X,
do A.
to
not
B tries
do
to
it
anyway.
Disobedience.
i)
A tells
ii)
A forbids
Will
do A, but
B to
B from
doing
B does not A, but
do A.
B does A.
Flouting. A communicates
A communicates
B does Will
to
B that
A wants
B to
to
B that
A wants
B not
A wants
B to
B
to
do A,
but
(Weakest). to
A communicates
to
A communicates to
B communicates
is
conflict maxims
B that B does
A that
to
communicates ii)
but
A,
A.
Incompatibility
i)
do
do A.
not
ii)
politeness
reasons
a
will
(strongest).
i)
does
Clearly,
for
used
that
severity:
Conflict
i)
4.
thesis
Based On Cognitive
consider
of
1. Actual
minimisation
let's
all,
is
more important
Indirectness
responses.
descending
the
act
For
The general
society. indirectness
some of
Strategies
First
in
of
but
A,
B
do A.
B not
to
do A,
but
do A.
to
Leech's
possible.
where
avoided
an explanation
are
to
want
A wants
B wants
A that
be
to
B that
not
do
to
strategies
achieve
just
this. He
six
postulated behaviour
polite Principle. i)
His The
maxims
and these six
Maxim,
Tact
minimize
of
maxims
the
cost
of
politeness
are:
in
the
which another
he says
form
to
go together
to
that
politeness
Politeness
the
attempts
speaker
and maximize
explain
the
benefit
to to
another. ii)
The Generosity benefit
to
Maxim,
himself
in
which
and maximizes
the
speaker
the
cost
minimizes to
himself.
the
-203-
iii)
The
Approbation
in
Maxim,
dispraise
minimize
the
which
another
of
speaker
and
attempts
to
praise
of
maximize
another.
iv)
The Modesty praise
himself
of
The
v)
Agreement
himself
between
himself.
of
speaker
and another
minimizes
and
maximises
and another. in
Maxim,
the
the
minimizes
dispraise
which
himself
between
antipathy sympathy
in
between
Sympathy
The
speaker
and maximizes
between
agreement
the
which
Maxim,
disagreement
vi)
in
Maxim,
the
which
himself himself
and
speaker
another
minimizes
and
maximizes
(Leech
and another.
op.
cit.
p. 132) Leech
then
Principle to
the
plus
form
p. 149).
He then
he calls
the
lack a
of
with
politeness
by Leech. (op.
he states
Searle's
essential
sincerity
conditions
If to
between innocuous
statement
(19a)
Nice
(19b)
Its
Considering
Leech's
the
maxim, suspicion
in
most
stranger
is
driven
The assertives,
most
such
as: we're
fourth but
in
maxims for
and as
(for
rules
in
example, and
conditions
aren't
conversation
a of
fairly
a
with
we?
it? turn:
the
opening
line
tact
may be often
them and flatters
the
seems rather
maxim and generosity third
The
assertives.
applied,
as people
by some ulterior -
start
applied
when
opening
having
maxim if
comes up to
it
find would
circumstances
maxim
those
an alternative
principles
people
isn't
here
approbation
relative being
then
applicable
aren't
act
from
interesting
very
us with
politeness
as one might
lovely
postulated
differ
preparatory
these
weather
are
speech
of
6.4),
section
their
illocutions).
of
strangers,
what
is
maxims
that
provide
conditions,
such
(see
ideas
they
sets
cit.
op.
define
to
politeness
Chinese
Leech's
we now consider
assertives,
maxim
maxims
for
to
theory
act
speech
example
p. 171),
cit.
of
set
Gu for
However,
(Leech
Rhetoric
an utterance.
of
Leech's
universality, of
given
force
go together
principle
may be applied
how this
Politeness
the
comprise
Cooperative
the
Interpersonal
the
pragmatic
that
maxims
of
describes
problem
set
the
maxims
he calls
what
One
that
suggests
treated that
think
with when
his
them,
action
motive. modesty strange
maxim to
can launch
be into
used a
with tirade
a
-204-
against sympathy
is
the
not
P is
not is
et. (20)
actually
Its
nice
seems
to
There
no
is
one
In
a
of
bel(S
appears
to but
reach
act
the
Without
maxim
agreement
(21)
other
is
but
to
that
Five
and
to
be
make,
one
the
tag
a
with
cognitive
that
hearer
the
way (as a tag
question)
the
cognitive
convey
firstly
responses:
where certain.
absolutely
not
quality,
of
could
one
go
along
with
as:
such
tone). does
hearer
(completely)
without
possible
to
common
a response
the
appears
response
this
only
other
(Rising
if
hand
form
response.
maxim
Yes.
Perhaps,
in
poss(P)
with
statements
therefore
conveying
the
not
some
the
only
inviting
preferred
violating
e. g.
particularly
not
expressed
that
that
sure
with.
is
possible
believes
making
safe
1 (see Chapter
is
happening,
also
now consider
hearer
then
is
is
make it
also
Let's
the
to
as:
it
that
speaker
P) but
The speech
On
is
be a surface
to
This
disagree
to
the
agrees.
the
agreement
it?
utterance
what
that
such
agreement.
likely
sense is
question
the
of
perfectly
obvious,
Tag Question
isn't
invite
the
appears
A form
is
One way of of
even
i. e.
here
form
safest
state
that
conflict
This
controversial.
1973).
al.
Assert(P).
act:
agreement,
state:
avoid
the
-
circumstances,
maxim,
way to
a statement
weather.
facilitates
which
certain
The fifth
best
the
speech
be so,
the
the
the
that
will
Quirk
in
applicable
maxim
on something.
assuming
about
The sixth
stranger.
welcome.
because
Consider
this
only
always
safest,
agreement
a perfect
is
maxim
sympathy is
to
oneself
the
violating
really
believe
quality
maxim,
not
that he
P, could
respond: (22) Note
Well,
the
the
use of
however
that
appears
abrupt,
hearer
A: We've
(24)
B: Actually,
not
want
marker
even
to
been
believes
having I think
appear
(25a)
B: Oh,
(25b)
B: Do you
I'm
response.
an unfavoured
signal
the
-P then
that
If
response
rude:
indicates
that
to
definitely
(23)
A response does
perhaps.
that too
nice
weather
its
been
the
hearer
rude
not
so sure.
really
think
might
or
so?
this
year,
haven't
we?
awful. cannot
accept
be one such
as:
P,
and yet
-205-
Asserting
that
P,
particularly
where
agreement
appears
to
be the
safest
form
positively
inviting
agreement,
thus
ensuring
of
is
one
inviting
utterance that
it
is
will
be
as
conflict
avoided. Another it
is
form
to
When
making
that
P
than
don't
seem to
hearer
involve
however
above,
He likes
suggestions,
It not
is
for
to
is
is
truthful is
placed
avoidance
believe
are
more (they
agreement
Suggestions
in
the
same way indicate
to
appears
as
the
acts
the
do and once
involve
hearer.
is
It
the
set
hence,
I suggest
indirectly,
used do
to
is
of one that
except he
that
something
by a pragmatic
guided
answer
for
something.
the
hearer.
answering
to
work
Hence
some a greater
Some societies questions
negatively
by
hearer
the
"obligation"
agree much
very doing
involves
of
a greater
easy
very saying
without
question
of
impose
hence
a
upon
degree
a higher
and
obvious
is
maxim.
morality
the
the
gives
a promise,
this
again,
pitfalls,
When making
often
promises
speaker
are
on P matters.
act
speech
one is
so,
one
as an authority
not
are
there
someone else,
and not
oneself,
doing
or disagreeing,
promise.
example
in
because
of
category
make
he?
However,
commitment.
to
used
form:
mightn't
a suggestion,
be
to
appear
clumsy
rather
tomorrow,
with
speech
he?
don't
questions
for
acts,
really
answering
doesn't
major
assertions
that
food,
next
Questions
of
question
oneself
maxim - the
part
above).
we
conflict).
tag
proclaiming
where
simple
invite
tone
of
commissive
shouldn't
don't
without
agreeing
obligating
perhaps
disagree
although
that
something
Suggestions
certain.
they
by either
commissive
that
falling
leave
agree
example,
The
given
examples
questions
an absolute
impression
the
tag
in
He might
making
not
(of
use of
tag
except
easy
stating
a suggestion
the
his
tone
rising
(27)
we are
in
safe
P e. g.
about (26)
the
is as in
because
open to
seems relatively
topic
we are
assertions
the
that
act conflict
some neutral a suggestion
leave
But
to
may be true,
neutral
doubts
speech
lead
to
unlikely
pertaining
of
assertion but
oneself,
about
focus
or
obligation
emphasis (e. g.
a
at
arriving
work,
place
the
on
an
with
than
on
Japanese),
the
-206-
hence
a question
be more
to
appears
"emotionally
loaded"
than
an
assertion. If
from
commitment then
requests
than
questions.
This
likely
that
conflict,
the
refusing
to
or
with
is
a question
awkward,
but
assertive
is
reached,
the
example,
a hint:
(28)
tonight
isn't
A is
hinting
that
use
a direct
one
of
B
as
refusing
commitment
to
a
potential happen
can
can
which
If
a request.
be an
readily
be
interaction.
Consider
an
rain
for
agreement
the
is
It
so.
that
out
but
right),
be
worst
carry
linguistic
in
to
negatively,
then
of
left
involves
The
answered
outside
can
waiting
who has a car):
Its
bus,
a
hard
raining
it?
he
like
would Lets
request. or
consider
the
the
direct
is
refused,
it
If
refused.
in
home
a ride
but
car, request,
it
then
cannot it
can
is
for
reasons:
different
B does B finds
or has to
direction to
going
not
his
visit want
home (because
lift
Aa
give
cannot
is
is
acquaintance
accepted
two
face.
of
controversial
(Standing an
assertives,
of
should
a request
it
form
this
why out
a loss
safest
A
be
carry
that
not
degree
(from
gradient
question
as bad
not
meeting
either
best
at
to
responding
of
> assertive
asking
worth
degree
hierarchy:
us the
gives
higher
a
a greater
on a downwards
goes
does
than
involve
> question
Indirection is
hearer
the
involves
questions
certainly
request it
to
responding
to
give
or A has halitosis,
A boring,
for
home (because,
lift
Aa
a or
can be many reasons).
there
mistress,
in
going
do some shopping
to
off
stop
is
he
can be many
there
again
example
reasons). Clearly,
circumstances where
response
to
The to
that. annoyed want
to
have
they
than
reason does
to
not
admit
to
want
they
that
and
won't
won't
normal
under
be
into
put
a
do something
in
does
not
a request.
strategy give
B
a better individual
an
position
want
is
can't
Aa
drives
of
hinting
lift.
with
B.
But
give
Aa
lift
allows
B can
off
and he
is or
Ba
agree
A is not
with left
absolutely
whether
out
way A's
he
assertion
perhaps certain
B was merely
if
feeling whether insensitive.
and
that
is
somewhat B did
not
-207-
On the
hand turning
other
the
into
request
is
a question
less
desirable: (29) or
A: Are
worse
(30) The
Can you possibly
strategy
can
of
the
to
resort
lift
B:
I'm
(breaking (32)
I'm
first
the
feels to
B:
but
any
Using parties
by
achieved
but
I'm
is
doing,
A:
(34)
B:
pick
up my son.
(35)
A:
Its
the
relations
in
order
potentially
request.
If
he
has
then
B to
the
up my son first
pick
to
give
you
something
he
second between
to
avoid
a lift. probably
it
case, A and
is
B.
Of
worsening
because
strategy, the I
request
will
heavily
going course
relations,
call
request
isn't
mean to
both
allows This
can
be
go
to
cancellation:
it?
you a lift,
give
I didn't
it
altogether.
tonight
I can't
sorry,
to
got
upon".
that
sorry
Oh,
in
safest
raining
I'm
to,
want
lying,
in
"put
a mechanism
(33)
the
with
prepared
into
by-passing
of
it
by lying)
not
forced
B feels
a means
not
I've
maxim,
comply
a hint
because
worse
comply
I can't,
about
case
home?
responses:
B is
unwillingly
in
does
but
a deterioration
to
B might
home,
sorry,
uncomfortable lead
not
quality
case
is
why B does
sorry
the
me a lift
give
a question
two
one of
(31)
In
using
reason
Aa
give
Stotfold?
still:
A:
reveals
home via
you going
imply
I have to
I was asking
for
a
lift.
(36) B: That's The implied
OK. is
request
effectively
interesting
raises
the
certain
situations.
question For
by both
cancelled
example a hint
why hints
of in
the
are
standard
the
salt?
not
be
used
instead.
There
are
perhaps
two
this
is
where
the
speaker
knows that
with
the
request.
firstly, unlikely
not
Why would
to
a case comply
such
as:
The salt
is
Perhaps
: Can you
of
to
next for
reasons
in
only
used
case
pass
This
parties.
the this
you. this:
hearer
is
explains
why: (37)
Can you pass
the
salt?
seems OK, whereas (38)
Will
you pass
seems rather This
appears
to
the
salt?
rude. suggest
that
in
a situation
where
the
speaker
-208-
knows
that
X". to
it
then
request"
is
is
"no"
Answering
is
to
So,
a request.
to
unlikely
to
acceptable
can happen
that
worst
hearer
the
that
ask a
hearer
the
is
a question does
why then
"No,
say
service
"No,
say
better
your
because
question, will
far
it
I won't
the do
I can't
than
answering
"no"
to
use a hint
such
seem strange
as: (39) as
The
form
a
because
of
then
we still
use:
Can
that
assumes form
the
X?
you
Can you then
allows
a strategy
the
state:
implies out
i. e.
strategy
(40)
awareness
When
is
the
needs
we look
at
that
politeness imposing implying
or
so
help
pupils
of
Speaker
request,
the
request
get
also,
part turn
fairly
of
out
might of
then is it
be
because
it
the
hearer
to
in
common
a
a hint
why
the
that by
offensive
as
one
revealing
imply
would
to
because
a reason
rude
so,
the
classrooms,
is
develop
Can you P?
form:
as
act formed
correctly (as a
a form
as
used
of
sense
a
request
this
that
strategy
some
state
is
it finely
a
so that
behaviour
anti-social
states
it
that
of
social
others).
the
We can now summarise
1.
to
is
where
the
acceptable
regarded
is
th: +.s is
intrusive
possible
be are
way
conventionalised/standardized is
where
that
is
open.
to
strategy to
refuse
more
in
This
is
that
it
exchanges:
why
reason
suggest
on the
would
this
pupil
The window
the
pedagogic
in
I
seems
act.
which
acceptable
Perhaps
request
social
it
hearer
unwillingness
used to
(H, P)).
passing
where
but is
that If
to
the
enables
anti-social
teacher
Perhaps
hinting
possible
(hints
hearer
likely
not
be
might form.
hinting.
to
acceptable,
H (do
a simple
is
hearer
cases
is
that
salt
a
carry
the
the
is
answer
a standardized the
opposed
X?
-want
in
used
as
hearer
the
favour,
X? is
delimit
to
you.
An obvious
Can You
need
to
next
request?
form
the
is
salt
It
also of
part
of
appearing
avoids
might). on the
form
tuned
it
a
much
so
not
the
avoids hearer.
as follows:
of
that
P obtains
affairs
is
a) known to b)
easily
for
the
c)
a
remedy.
the
hearer,
recognisable speaker, state
of
as a state
of
affairs
that
is
bad
and affairs
that
the
hearer
can
possibly
-209-
2. Hearer
can:
fail
a) b)
to
completely it
recognise
as a hint
the
alleviates
the
recognise
and offer
consequences
of
as a hint.
assertion
state
to
do
of
affairs
Q
which for
speaker. c)
recognise
it
as a hint,
but
be unable
d)
recognise
it
as a hint,
but
not
2a.
Hearer
agrees
2b
Hearer
offers
2c.
unless
there
Hearer
may:
i)
with
for
imply
that not
do Q
and
implies
you a lift 2d.
Hearer to
being
to
strategy
to
a strategy
he might
time
"I'm
time
direct
the
mean
to
able
to 2a. that
have been
able
I can't
give
sorry, "
perhaps.
2ci
strategy
and adopt
The
"cancel"
not
may resort
e. g.
lie
2a.
for
resort
some other
either
strategy
or
today.
not
today,
will
reason
some other
at
but
do P,
to
the
hearer
the
that
do Q".
reason.
didn't
"I
of
you to
lie
either
Alternatively
accepts,
give
to
option
equivalent
reveal
Q and
to
able
has the
the
I wanted to
sequence.
(presumably)
Speaker
being
speaker
want
exchange
a misunderstanding.
not
by saying
do Q.
to
want
end of
Q.
has been
which
request
ii)
do
to
apologise
After
speaker,
do Q.
to
is
response
resort
or
normally
unacceptable.
In that
the in
a lie I that
it
has to
hearer
to
order
schema,
the
conceal
having
avoids
to
not
want
it
Furthermore
gives
to
reason
that to
rise
hearer
that
can
the
level
that
if is
a means
why
and
are
Leech
called had
by
requested of
(2a)
hints
hearer
the
is
do Q.
why he cannot reason
happen
snub
potential
the
do Q (which
the
the
happen
would
which
he did
between
choose
therefore,
suggest
incompatibility, that
this
with
accordance
"worst"
the
the
to
will reveal
speaker).
round
getting
is
used
having
to
lie.
The the
analysis
same way,
taxonomy i)
of
I suggest
requests
Request on P,
that
suggests that
might
we cannot
all
(though
possibly
(To a person
is who
a simple
requests incomplete)
be:
Confirmation. I believe
treat
that
P,
can you confirm?
)
an
authority
in
-210-
ii)
Request He is
iii)
Information.
Request
hearer
the
asking
Here the
Action.
to
The
speaker
him about
tell
speaker
P.
P. hearer
the
wants
know
to
wants
to
do something. iv)
Request the
Transaction.
speaker
Case 1 was described wants
and knows
important
the further
possibility
tell
the
as:
precondition
speaker
you
again
to
willing for
normally
refuse
to
do P can
be
out,
not
used.
out,
in
likelihood
On
of
is
(there
a to
permitted
speech
the
necessary also
act(it
works to
permitted
tell
other
likely
hand,
I can't that
in fact
calls
the
(see
the
give
for
seems natural I usually due to
a question
give
other
to
direct
forms
my friend
be used.
speaker that
claim
hearer,
the
increases,
theory
the
him to
commitments,
would
the
and
a lift
my friend
to
want
then
speaker
within
a
above).
schema
or even
acceptable
him
enables
between
questions
not
giving
also
the
hearer
incompatibility), of
that
a pathway
that
the
he does
that
will
virtue
give
to
ability
something to
is not
would
regarding
order
to
wants forward
put
hearer
a favour,
the
has
has
is
then
Leech
perfectly
case
it
have
the
a question
hearer
the I
important
two
are
that
assumed
then
do,
there
that
argument
familiarity
it
here
do P and
is
it
a comment
I always
this
sometimes more
he
using
is
example,
the
and
indirect
is
hearer
the
can The
to
hint
The
making
this
in
if
speech
request,
(what
increased
With
it:
is
Addressing
disguising
of
that
he was merely
For
P
P?
indirect
however
If
request
is
however
know
service,
want
a means the
a way
an
knows
involves
and
question. something
hearer
the
P may
that
know
typically me
which
asked.
might
a hint
as
to
speaker
on P matters
a tagged
hearer
the
whether
tell
) do P.
request
service
wants
hearer
the
a
way
speaker
case
believes
an authority or
"normal"
the
that
conditions:
hearer
is
the
where
The speaker
whether
to
wants
3 is
Case
that
Can
where
P).
about
is
This
once
the
when
P).
situation
typically,
regarding
speaker
such
acts
(or
is
question
the
true.
the
when
is
hearer
the
question
2 arises
Case
him
that
a declarative
uses
P is
that
confirmation
be true
it
above,
transactions,
buy P.
to
wants
in
Used
presented.
home when he requests
a in
home,
lift this
However
form.
direct
use the
case if
this
it
but is same
-211-
friend
wanted
onto
new ground: that
reason lend
he would
on more difficult may
also
can then
speaker this
Case
4 is
sales:
here
is
that
the
is
able
to
sell.
in
not
is
obvious
To
that
request) to
do P.
may
not
form
type
of in
perceive Politeness
requests
the
speech
The requests:
hint
Brown assertion
the
way of
involving
it,
May
use
he has
have
I
P
direct
the
he
that
also
whether
to
assumption
to form is
P.
please?
requests:
we
used by Allen
know
(depending
is
because
the
of
willing hearer is
This
surface that
obstacles
we do not
mean that
do P.
The exact
of
the
want
to
execution
a successful
type is
above.
:
execute
hearer
to
willing
by the
determined
to
upon the
a problem
not
(1983,1987)
order
the
and that
he is
is
In
a goal.
may
we
request. for
test
directly. of
request
is
how
is
schemas
or
plans
totally
with
compatible (1983)
that
also
pre-
explains
speech
hence
acts,
challenge
pre-sequences
incorrect.
question the
and Levinson that
is
for
schema described
request
theory
is
P.
sense
out
made by Levinson
other
has
achieve
us that
as something
act
the
this
the
idea
assertion
known
can do P,
considerations
The
the
tell
incompatibility
will
anyway,
equilibrium,
P? The
got
he has
strategies
we need to
finding
to
want
by using
solved
in to
hearer
However,
you
acceptable
indirect
operations
the
of
the
impolite.
plan,
request
to
same time
transactions
P if
be
vendor
as a "plan"
of
Have
may not
the
the
summarise
sequence
the
bit
hearer
request
form
a
for
sell
perfectly
that
least
a request
view
is
at
is: to
want
What
it
that
form
will
it.
sell
arrive
exclusively
indirect
the
the
making
hint
intact.
almost
vendor
the
face
or
used
Note it
when
to
Here the
At the
request.
it
friendship
can be used by the
the
to
money,
the
a hint.
simple
request
him
may put
for
the
a
lend
it
need
he was not
that
parties
honour
maintaining
a
both
enables
the that
service
claim
I won't
for to
react
friendship
our
use a hint
I can't
hence
as a mechanism
why he cannot
explain
if
even
ground,
serve
to
I say that
take
would
know how I would
not
friendship,
the
this
be likely
and if
money,
then
money,
he would
him
strains
borrow
to
a hint
connected
form
surface
(op. violates
the
strategies
decoded
as
with
cit. the
p.
213)
maxim of
are
surrounding
a request?
incorrect
relevance.
in It
their does
-212-
for
not,
if
it
truely
irrelevant
hence
that
it
recognise
giving
speech
thought
the
I
e. g., direct
speaker's
act
something,
and in
most
hearer
to
is
directly
speaker believe
that
oneself
directly
conveyed
by the
to
do P is
you
to
used
that
this,
if it
P,
force
speaker
this
is
the
as an order
Is
the it
the that
Further forms
such (42)
most
form
hearer's
really
By questioning implying
its
the
utterance: it
I want is
being
order
for
another
the
an
because
of
hearer
to
degree
of
the
what
the
speaker
it
be a
request
should as
interpret
imposing
impolite.
rather the
(speech
direct
form
of
i. e.
act)form,
necessary
why the
he would
rather
asking
doing
for
for
you to
hearer
someone not
to
you to
take
out
of e. g.
something,
doing
P,
the
not
do P.
do
something
as: I ask/tell
that
make so much noise?
is
hearer
the
is
by Searle
mentioned reasons
reasons
ways of
Must
state
terminology)
come over to
you to
expressing
cognitive
act
the
where
command.
about
(41)
hearer
the
in
to
a
he
and
(e. g.
state
of
that
the
with
a
fact
of
or
be
do
I want
he wants
theory
to
P;
to
do P
hearer
do
hearer
or
to
that
effect
one form
that
the
act
tends
indirect
Another
is
speech
for
state or
to
cognitive
a tendency
cognitive
question
be clear
Hence it
a command).
There
not
in
types
case
way
a suggestion
hearer
the
the
speech
which
directly
states
to
with
other
will
the
conveys
state
is
the
get
another
convey
wants
use classical
express
it
The
are
some
appears
an assertive:
that
clear
directives
speaker
might
(to
wishes or
the
not
whether all
the
is
act
to
The problem
act.
it
that
Almost
fact
do
speech
will
sentences
hearer
the
similar
explicitly
obeyed.
they
example
affect.
of
appears
to
that
speaker
purpose
hearer
other
for
an attempt
is
the
and why
certain
desired
the
be
examining
particular
This
the
is
worth
or want
is
do P.
Thus it
P.
perform;
example.
is
This
cases,
states
requests
indirect:
the
it
that
that
identified
wish
of
directive
the
it
will
and
context.
examining
do P.
communication
wants
current
the
conventionally
you to
want
to
Searle
acts.
were
concerning
we assume
from
behaviour
maxims
a hint
indirectly,
performed
he
relevance
some time
spent
distinguish
to
We assume co-operative
and
as relevant
Having
be impossible
would
responses.
when
indirect
it
sequencing
Therefore
often
did,
the
garbage?
speaker
include
a
-213-
I
that
suggest
the
reason
contract
between
the
normally
do P and
in
knowledge
extra acceptable were
no
does
P.
is
acts
how can we measure
6.6
maxim
of
take
the
they
We have
is
a violation
of
is
speaking
(43) then not
in
fact
this
speech
ensures
the
to
sequencing relevance
hearer
that
so.
This
be
is
an
barely if
odd
hearer
maxims
a
will
is
firstly,
with
there
normally
how do the and
secondly,
particular
reference
by
study
for
Searle
because
to
a response
there
the
as
the
sequencing
speaker If
we
a proposal:
in
the
terms
maxim in
of
a
maxims
It
acts.
topic
when
that
It
evasive.
an
of
the
is
the its
discourse
the
give
also
as well
seen as a violation
seen as being
also
The
between
sequence
To change is
so.
pairing
primary-secondary
does
conjunction is
speech
secondary
it
maxim,
relevance
see why this
we will
expected
sequencing
(that
to
going it
without
intent).
introduction.
and is
paramount is
communicative
the
and appropriate
is
are
conversation
violate
may be defined
new topic
These
the
are
my exams,
to
of
maxims
presumption
maxim then
maxim,
pragmatic
relevance
we take
a question
Maxims
a rational
assume
continuation
and
would
maxim.
identifiable
If
acts
controlling
answer
if
appears
maxim
primary
it
Gricean
sequencing
used
relevance
sequencing
as
to
do so.
the
with
the
hearer
form
approach:
communicative
example
although
and
do
is
there
the
This
but
important
most the
some
I have
P.
and Pragmatic
to
the
with
the
to
politeness,
inviolable
place.
consider
to
of
two and
are
failed
that
acts?
relevance
because
has
this
with
Speech Acts
Possibly
that
to
is
used
hearer
polite,
relate
is
and
speaker
levels
speech
Indirect
very
remain
speech
indirect
case
form
relating
not
Two questions
to
this
between
assumption
indirect
speaker
state it
as
why this
coherence. The as
to
insincerity. push
making
It
they obey is
also
someone into
a request,
that
maxim ensures
make promises,
desirable
not
sincerity
the
intend this
carry
a violation
to
ensure
of
this
requires
do things
maxim. some form
is
it implies
violation that
such
Clearly
them out.
because
maxim
desirable
response
to
when people
an utterance
does
For
when
of
example, commitment
by
-214-
hearer.
the then
he
which
is
If
hearer
has to
either
maxim
of
the
co-operative
by
inferring
quantity computer
the
service
or violate
the
sincerity
that
the
speaker
each
others
has that
result
used
(44)
and beliefs,
request, maxim,
to
the
them to
enable
each
other the
described
those
responses:
by
we stand
sometimes
(1983)
speaker's
provides
with
then
Allen
"helpful"
inferring
of
If
co-operate
be violated.
produced
little.
too
not
people
wants
to
information
providing
much, that
principle:
model
example
to
want
ensures
too
not
maxim
a
not
say so,
quantity
information,
enough
does
undesirable.
The
as
the
goals
that
and
achieve
those
time
the
a arose
plans
and The
goals.
was:
Traveller:
Can you tell
the
of
train
next
to
Rochester? (45) In
Clerk: the
a sense, to
answer
(46)
T:
(Direct)
(47)
T:
(Indirect)
(48)
C:
(Direct)
(49)
C:
(Indirect)
directly
that
it
asks
for.
obeying as
is in
"indirect":
tell
me the does
it
the
of
18.30
indirect
not the
from
the
is
not
a strict
question.
time
of
the
...? to
train
next
It
act.
also
is
because
the
but
it
that
it
the
violates than
...?
To violate
say the
response includes
also makes it
in
strictly and
co-operative maxim is
quantity
maxim or the
relevance
a form
maxim
question
being
the
direct
quantity
the
up between
set
maxim.
as violating
5.
argue
more information
a conflict
platform
form,
surface
and one could
quantity
serious
5.
18.30 At
providing
the
is
At
speech
Here
response
What time
information
is
platform
Canyou
coded
indirect
from
interpretation
it
speaking
additional of
clerk's
indirect
the
Strictly is
18.30
At
not
sincerity
maxim. is
It operative almost
to
daily
and is
purchase
a
underground
ticket.
card.
save
to
example,
a
one-day
However, themselves
So the
draw
For
distance
walking
and could
a travel
buy
usually
within
rail
know where
however.
principle
University
ticket,
difficult
following
of most
the
line
into
I travel ticket.
people
often
takes
London City
so I
only
would
money by buying
co-
However
Cross,
Kings
the
with
a place:
use
the
composite
-215-
The
(50)
P:
A return
(51)
Clerk:
Do you want
(52)
P:
No
(53)
Clerk:
(Provides
co-operative
to
Kings to
Cross
please.
use the
underground?
ticket)
principle
has
obviously
involve
to
certain
generalisations. The
quantity
asserting to
maxim
something
which
know
you
indirect
that
you
the
answer.
is
known
(54)
the
hearer,
e. g.
raining
hard
sometimes
tonight
I
that
suggest is
violated
Its
(56)
maxim) . I'm really
second
by
asking
a question
when
it
certain something
(Can I have
to
lift?
a
).
by asking
a request
answer
either
using
asserting
of making
heavily
short
involves
The
the
for
obvious
a
question
is
has
been
of
as being
the
hearer
asks
the
the
hearer
hearer
can
not
the
speaker but
one that
the
the that
neither
should
of
be thought that
something if
the
do not
want
either
refusing
these
violated,
to
or
do.
occurs
not
hearer
the
him to of
violation
the
choice.
speaker,
prospect
wants
the
acceptable
they
quantity
but
maxim,
no other
asks
the
of
moment.
that
generally
tell
hints:
quantity
is
speE.ker
do something with
lie,
is
to
want
the
there
not
the
faced
do whatever
hearer
If
to
is
is
It
the
suggests
truthfulness
a liar. does
This
maxim
(Violation
of
because
reasons.
quantity following
the
of money at
not.
but
maxim of
the
tonight.
a violation
does
probably
that
consider
raining
as a strategy,
or
occur involves
the
fact
the
coincidental;
(55)
first
not
or
ways:
known.
already
The
that
other
true,
isn't
form
means
be
These
The conventional/standardized question
in
to
sometimes
to
Its
know
a hint
strategies:
that
be violated
can
speaker do,
to
then
to
tell
Alternatively,
the is
alternatives
very
desirable. A
violation that
possibility
the thing.
form, maxim It
associated The
maxim of manner
speaker
necessary
e. g. of
the
the
indeed
acceptable, direct
of
Watch
manner
is
out!
with
being
maxim
of
will
when shouting However,
violated,
may be associated tactful politeness
be
with
but being
in
results
a
greater It
misunderstood. to
a warning
when using is
this evasive,
is
use a very form
an indirect not
always
but
it
a
may also
bad be
or polite. assumes
that
the
speaker
uses
the
-216-
level
correct this
of
further.
maxim this
against
of
separate to
their
set
explain
threatening Japanese
for
discernment.
the
possible
to
realise
in
result example
very a
information
final
The
speaker
the
for
difficult
A politeness, (op.
hinting
particularly ) suggests
cit.
a set
i)
The Cost-benefi-c
ii)
The Optionality
iii)
The Indirectness
iv)
The Authority
v)
The
Social
The cost-benefit hearer
of
(Leech
op.
cit.
hearer
(of
having
to
themselves.
where
he
in
terms
of
scales:
for
used,
reveal
the
maxim
things
that
do something
to
of the
avoid
should has
play
is often
to
someone
firstly
all it
are
is
of
reveal
he does not
when considering
a request. is
of
how
indirect
can speech
measure
we
Leech
acts?
Scale. Scale. Scale. Scale.
is
scale with
p. 107) to
force
question
Distance
complying
acts
to
comes into
pointed
that
maxims
position
when making
remaining
(1986)
Thirdly,
speaker
morality
face
match
speech
have to
their
and
not
the
or to
in
does
other
this,
the
element
Secondly, the
to,
The maxim of
strategy
to
aspects
into not
keep
of
a greater
by Bach and Harnish)
reveal.
hearer
he ought do.
to
want
to
not
the
something
two
are
the
are
in
face
above).
indirect
to
(used
face
of
we
attempted
Ide
as
involve
attempts
prefer
maxim
ought
putting
that
then
misguided of
firstly,
examples
why
necessary
have
terms
between
reasons
they
There
morality.
and
tensions
act
that
in
concept
becomes
terms
appear
the
requires
in
they
to
this
politeness
However
appears
in
way.
Levinson
reasons:
will
wrong
and
a
theory
the
Brown
arguments
speech
in
in
Chinese
language
every
what
three
good
it
If
argue
result
virtue
that
by Leech.
analyse
4)
p.
to
some
represent
Secondly, (see
is
to
pragmatic
to
example,
cultures
There
for
cit.
likely that
everything
for
acts
is
politeness
strategies.
to
attempt
(op.
result
maxims
view
is
which
of
has attempted
has indicated
defined
is
alternative
maxims,
out,
to
attempting
The other
those
new politeness
possibly
the
with
Gu (1990)
to
maxims
define
it
unconstrained.
because
argument,
(1983)
because
maxims
totally
Leech
Brown and Levinson
approach
proliferation become
politeness.
Scale.
of
a measure the
Peel
the
cost
For
utterance. these
potatoes
do some work).
On the
or benefit
example involves
other
the
to
the
utterance
a cost
to
the
hand an utterance
-217-
such
Have
as
hearer.
Given to
cost
polite.
as
it
stands.
is
a change
speaker
Leech
the
inferences intention The
is
plus Of
degree
the
In
to
order
first
return for
used
own
right
A Schematic
Model
Throughout
the
based
acts
in
necessary
choice gives
is. how
of
arrive
many the
at
as
already
social
that
the
factors
are
on measures
of
to
which
some extent
some
as because
I
of
want
that
expand
shall
a
significance.
indirectness I
and
etc.
politeness,
of
has
speaker
about
come
of
strategies
distance
indirectness
accept
two
act
age
the
speaker
the
considered
do not
I
for
respect
that
The
between
to
determine
ii)
determine
to are
upon
in
model
of
that
the
idea
of
states
or cognitive
intent
behind
a
states
that
to:
the
underlying
what
the to
order
determine, response
"Request"
I have been developing
thesis,
upon the
in
Speech Act
the
of
order
i)
says
the
section.
think
i)
is
there
speaker
authority
respectfulness
speech
6.7
iii)
there
less
terms to
versa.
appears
the
particular
next
are
the
in
the
of
it
light to
the
speech
and
utterance
order
familiarity
-
first
all
vice
have
I
some
of
one
of
but
the
throw
in
make
such
factors,
but
factors
other
the
a measure
upon
factors
its
polite
scale
hearer
the
gives
be measured
or
authority;
of
in
measure
based
five
the
is
degree
overall
other
to
hearer,
the
hearer,
the
hearer
the
is
how much choice
with
general)
can
has
scale
over
is
a
utterance.
authority has
down!
(in
scale
the
sandwich
down? The more choice
sit
hearer
behind
speaker
to
concerned
Sit
more polite
the
potatoes
hearer
to
is
these
on the
somewhere benefit
to
is
hearer.
indirectness
The
another
the
there
when
as Peel
to
politeness.
scale
like
you
hearer,
for
in
imperatives
Have
that
out
benefit
obvious
such
hearer
to
an
as
hand
points
cost
the
gives
form
other
optionality
Would
bare
an utterance
increase
The
scale
their
On the
from
a general
the
in
has
sandwich
hearer,
the
hardly
than
another
to that
speaker
speaker
to
hearer
extent,
know, speech
make a particular some
the
needs
an utterance.
the
believe
or
act.
possible
types
of
may make.
communicates
beliefs,
intentions,
wants
-218-
to
etc.
the
hearer.
communicates
to
For the
example,
hearer
when
that
P, the
requesting
he
wants
the
hearer
facts
about
an
utterance
speaker do
to
something. ii)
is
a mutually the
enable example, hearer iii)
to
example,
in
possible
that to
speaker
I
in
an
could
Chapter
communicated
In
to
make
to
Five
I
the
which
I
in
together then
the
used
original
a sketchy
account
of
surface
forms.
outlined states
map onto
indirect
speech
it
is
delivered
within
a particular
I shall
an outline
expression
plan
For it
is the the
the
of
in
for
plan
is
cognitive
accordance
schematic
the
that
with the
Then
an
with
add to
language
the
particular
together to
state
act.
how
how
action
form
the
that
speech
acts,
determine
in
response
necessary
a particular
of form
appropriate
now examine
in
act.
cognitive
speaker's
be
most
the
enables
Three
the
which
the
Chapter
possible
plans"
of
that
questions
the
of
"schematic
successful
This
range
of
the
him.
the
maxims,
is
For
knows that
speaker
show
a
plan
act.
hearer
the
speech
communicated
pragmatic
schematic
the
effectively
of
should
to
believe
not
account set
believes
knows about
responses
will
include
to
speech
P.
cognitive
order
of
speaker
speaker
hearer's
information
Four
the
a response
schema.
Chapter
hearer in
in
outline
the
an assertion,
recognize
this
put
that
hearer
the
belief
speaker's
of
making
type
that
do P.
to
the
understand
of
a request,
things
certain
set
make a particular
making
be able
might
order
to
speaker
when
are
shared
the
schema
speech
act A
community. used to in
state
terms norms.
politeness speech
ensure
act
request.
REQUEST
In
this
strictly,
description
some
of
the
I shall
request
of
belong
may arguably
conditions
liberal;
be somewhat to
tell
ask. Firstly,
Action: Cognitive
I will
SPEAK(S States:
use the
H want(S 1)
2)
schema outlined
do(H
know(S
P))) -do(H
-want(S
P)
bel(H
->
-P)
O(do(H
3) bel (S poss (do (H P)) ) Presumed
Effect:
know(H
in
want(S
do(H
P)))
P))))
Chapter
Three:
or
-219-
This
tells
us
the
hearer
to
to
know
before
doesn't not should P.
do P).
do P,
it do P,
may In
the
the
the
us
the
hearer
to
passing the (such
as
the
speaker
not
have
to.
we need
to
does this
deliver
to
is
to
for
request or
ensure
requesting
giving
a certain
that
someone
hearer
something.
There
are
probably
other
gives
us
permission
to
hearer Within
this
between
relationship measure
of
is
assumption
For
small.
apology
the
request
are
pattern
is
supply
a situation
established
with
one
example
requesting
want
Precondition:
or
before of the
illegally).
(S know(P) know(H
to
) P)
hearer
do
that
acceptable
something
forms,
aim we
of want
(such
as
(such
as for
a request
affairs
comes
about
of
something)
allows
us
such
the
plan
do
of
do
that
that
a car),
we
to
knows
information
or
as
or
to
use that
requesting
something.
information
to
also
some
and
hearer.
The
to
service
the
able
not
a loss in
what
we want,
of
will
a
then
the the
this.
There
hearer
to
do
gives
small
a to
unwilling
the
and
shop
incompatibility
that
making
is
however
face,
of
something
hearer
authority
is
there
speaker
is
the
about
hearer,
the
This
Perhaps
for
in
with
ensures
schema
P.
schematic in
sells
for
us if
a
does
speaker
the
informed
subject
we ask
do
speaker
state
hearer
Worse,
plan
(morally i)
to
then
Therefore
wrong
if
order.
request
problem
is
unable
in
is
hearer
example
is
assistant
the
the
then
request
the
the
hearer
between
if
that
that
hearer
the
the
to
and
distance
social
if
ultimate
is
speaker
needs
The
gives,
there
schema,
speaker
community.
is
that
the
most
a lift
that
the
add
hearer us
wants
that
to
the
a request
the
speaker
the
convey
may be
this
the
wants
request
language
the
salt
the
requesting
the
he has
that
but
him: a
believe that
what
furthermore
that
plan
time),
act:
fact
within
from
something
speech
the
to
schematic
us
done,
fact
speaker
form
surface
tells
includes
addition
enables
it the
get to
the
add
Finally,
hearer
won't
(that
communicated
Secondly
hearer
also
being
generating it
the
want
is
what
service exists. for
preconditions request,
the
pre-request
may even
be
a
something
that
us
the
following:
the
morality we know
is
--220-
ii)
want (S do (H P) )
Preconditions:
(do(H
will
iii)
P))
poss(do(H
want(S do(H P))
Preconditions:
P))
P=a
transfer
poss
(do(H P))
will
(do(H
of ownership
of an object
P))
has (H P)
ii)
includes
also the
case
to
willing
If
we take
the
problem
do
in
the
act
first
the
me the
(58)
Have you got
the
the
cases, In
certain
in
be
used
a double
is
hearer
knows whatever
form time,
for
such
the
speaker
is:
requests
please?
cases,
the
hearer
to
check
here
noting
that
and
ability both
the
to
give of
ability
is
forms
can
auxiliary
modal
permission,
questioning
pre-
reasons these
of
the
able
for
first
the
be
may not
requested, case
of
then
please?
attempting
both
information,
for
a request
is
worth
and
hence
and
requesting
may
hearer's
the
of
to
ability
do P based
to
willingness (in
distance important
some
constituent, hearer the
speaker
table
to kind
the
before.
of
fact
willingness
to
do P
overrides
the
The speaker
must
judge
on factors
presumably obligation Chinese
minimal
judge
also
will
referring
is
The
hearer
that I
and is
cost
to
whether the suggest
hearer that
use
cost
of
the
passing )
nicety.
a social
hinting
an
as
play
whereas
a
social
as
such
the
cost,
hearer's
the
comes into
society),
money has a high
(lending
case
something.
societies e. g.
second
do
hearer's do P.
the
to
the
requests
speaker
for
strategy
an outline
given
already
precondition
this
which
hearer
the
whether
speaker
meaning;
the
which
at
in
)
I have
the
of
time
which
denote
to
permission.
salt
is
(It
-
information
the
speaker
appropriate.
to
the
Can you tell
confidentiality,
in
that
(57)
the
have
that
indirect
both
of
illegal,
or
question.
standard
the
condition,
can
exists
case, is
immoral
be
could
same basic
precondition
requests,
In
that
acts
act the The
strategy
has serviced
a
request
of
everyone
has
their
own
-221-
threshhold by use
as to
of
a question,
Cost
to
to
apply
seems
whether
a request i)
when
that
Distance
deciding
to
use
The
hints
the
a state
hearer
waiting
for
Speaker
states
An obvious rude
refuse
to
a state
(59) I
that
implies
that
the
thing
same
be
taken
as
all,
social
norms,
is
salt)
form
address.
of
"you"
"vous"
that
the
hearer
norms
rather
is
pure
of
that is
it
bed
with
that
necessary
to
situations
small
the if
loaded
cost
would
strategy
not
normally
it.
reach a hint,
the
speaker
do P and
to might
is
this
be willing
not
to
something
of
which
form
in
The modal in
observe
a question
rather
the
social
distance
is
the
hearer,
it
to
indirect
can is
(i. e.
it
used because
in in
the
used because
makes their
a
a form
uses
the
use
way
that
however
this
same
French,
pass
that
may stem from
it
not
exists.
and I suggest
address
is
is
form
imperative
bald
English,
ways that
will
where
distance
social
used,
to
that
old
not
resort
is
salt?
form
hearer
the
the
with
no form the
direct
the
an acceptable
a possibility
indicate
is
we assume
uses
is
why a hinting
behaviour,
why
In
speculation).
pragmatically
be home in
willing
social
is
a request
as a polite used
wet
offensive.
question
it
to
very
to
by making
hinting
(There
is
and
like
you and I can't
be because
as Can you pass
such
of
to
a problem
that
getting
him
e. g.
be
Additionally, the
for
of:
he would
hearer
the
not
however use
is
point
where
next
request?
to
acceptable
need to
might
why
then,
make
form
the
bad
I'm
that
affairs
hearer
given
a direct
(e. g.
this
ask at
might
related
after
great,
is
this
as
is
to
or
take
that
affairs
of
request?
accepted
Another
than
the
the
the
observe might
to
The salt
suggest
strategy
themselves
I really
a situation
service
a hinting
)
cold.
in
request
bus. )
(e. g.
question
seems
or
> Threshhold
can rectify.
this
see obtain. this
of
strategy
formula
rough
- Social
states
hinting
use the
the
a question.
Speaker
ii)
but
Hearer
using
they
others
are
inappropriate,
use
e. g will. The dependent
It
indirect
form:
(Sinclair
and Coulthard
(60)
Can
three
skittles)
may also
you
juggle
be ambiguous,
Can
with
e. g.,
you
do
P?
1975), three
be
may
contextually
e. g. objects?
speaker
to
(Speaker
holding
in
Japanese
hearer
a
-222-
restaurant: (61)
Can you speak
preference
for
The final
form
or
use
is
heavily
something
In
to
speaker,
the
perfectly
to
borrow
the
who shows a
marked
hearer.
type
transaction
of
is
indirection
of
is
that to
willing
have
to
wants
The form
hearer
the
speaker
sell
to
take
the
item
form:
the
P? On the
as do the
apply hearer's
hearer,
case
the
where
distance
is
not
sufficiently
The trees
at
the
back
if then
do P.
to
willingness
hand,
other
owned by the
something
social
the
where
by the
acceptable.
the
is
request
where
then
(To Hearer
food)
upon the
a situation
considerations assess
of
possessed
Have you got is
Japanese
dependent
place.
Japanese?
If
the
speaker
the
same
speaker the
near
sort
of
attempted
to
is
cost
great
a hint
then
wants
and be
may
used, e. g (62)
down the
cutting
light
to
of my garden
are
overhanging
(May I borrow
my rockery.
and
your
wood
saw? )
Requests
Other -
forms
Other These
seem to i)
Forms
leave
you to Speaker
states
the
states
request,
this
case
P),
There Although these
by
cases
of
whereas
are the is
I
e. g.
request.
want
e. g. cancer.
you don't
stop
(Specification
of
If
if
that
hearer
the
then
smoking, the
the
of
state
a precondition
case
where
doesn't
do P, then
directly.
(For
obtain)
Speaker
the
of
effect
or emphasises
states
speaker
-P will iii)
get
all
requests.
with
room.
act.
requesting we'll
the
connection
forms:
desired
states
in
exist
following
the
Speaker
ii)
indirection
of
take
Indirection
of
the is
communicative
the
the
what
being
various
reasons
strict
definition
indirect,
same as the
an assertive, is
it
act
desired
desired
why these of
come across
is:
forms
speech
acts
as a very
P) ).
bel(S
might the direct
in
bel(H
is:
effect
communicated
but
effect,
a
be
used.
first form
of of
-223-
The
speaking.
is
argument
to
that
speech
that
(63) has
Leave
is
in
it
cases
or
form
such
the
is
why there desired
the lesser
to
akin
the
such
effect
an of
however
success,
as
room
structure that
you leave
the
can be expressed directly
to
possible
room
I suggest
misguided.
verbs
is
state
a surface
almost
reason
to greater
I imper
act
possible with
my opinion
speech
the
directly
an underlying (64)
is
is
particular
Perhaps
it
acts
suggest
in
case
hypothesis.
performative
many
third
that
the
reason is
performatively
many
in
many
that
desired
the
express
why
Hence
effect.
an assertive, (65)
The moon is
made of
green
cheese,
becomes (66) or
in
I believe
the
first
(67)
I
that
the
moon is
made of
green
cheese.
case, believe
you to
want
that
moon is
the
made
of
green
cheese. By directly intention
I request
(69)
I want
in
is
The
of
that
according it
request
(70) an
behind
case
arises
(71)
for
is
possible
to
form
of
of possible
has
I don't could
person
the
speaker
form
of
this
using
not
emphasise
want
are
assert
with the
is
type
being
the
of
somewhat
seems
very
making
the
gives
some
itself.
act
indirection For
used.
else
nobody
I varies
example
with
the
idea
to
that
will. In
request/ask/tell.
hearer
to
and
say:
precondition
hearer
point
case
when
appears
to
case:
beliefs.
their
do P then
you don't
the
the
that
precondition
the
act,
room,
as an indirect
reasons
which
(the the
act
indirection
the
choice that
in
to
indirect
also
impression
sincere
the
the
If
consequences is
very
speech
room.
much to
very
the
second
precondition suggest
are
the
the
the
of
directive
the
The analogous
giving
utterance
leave
you to
politeness.
intense,
in
effect
you leave
that
forms
these
of
lacking
as
be clearer
couldn't
(68)
Both
desired
the
expressing
be
this
draw
to
case
doing
P.
When making
the
desire
the
speaker
does
that
you have
to
to
the
a request
it
attention
hearer
the
give not
to
want
a say
do P), e. g.
you to
you possibly
think do P.
to
do
it
but,
-224-
here
the
and does
not
Other
this
that
speech
there
act
you
little
There
is
emphasising
:_or
to
(Maltby
and Boulblil
asking
for,
cases the
to
the
fact
found
for
he
believing
him.
every
speech
almost
be
to
appears
accepts
one
that
is
requested/asserted
I gave
an
example
of
was known what
reason
why the
speaker
I have
attempted
to
the
precondition.
what
it
where
P,
saw a UFO.
that
hearer
emphasise
hearer.
1989)
but
be
just
I
the the
of
where
do
to
indirection:
of
me but
indirection
wants
also
known
already
believe
reason
are
forms
won't
can
hearer
ask the
any pressure.
likelihood
particularly
to
similar
indirection
of The
speaker
yield
speaker
is
verb.
him under
put
know
the
types
he has no right
acts
I
case
Similar
to
want
(Assert) In
feels
speaker
is
plead/beg
the
speaker
was pleading
was
was
not
known.
6.8
Summary
In
this
indirect
speech
consisted form
section,
of
of
beliefs
or
deontic
to
of
example not
speaker
of
him and is
the
most
which
also
will
enable
appropriate
include
imposed
determine
(to
will
for
prepared
happen
the
speech
speaker form
surface
upon him by a set
considerations
of
or
those in
about a set
of
some extent)
the
hearer.
For
the
hearer
the
may
that
of
uttering
a particular
is
associated
deliver
the
act to
is
effect,
as a result
the
by modal
this. a presumed
contains
speaker
include
from
their
of
things:
knows that
speaker
the
have thought they
receive
in
preconditions
two
express
Secondly, to
act
the
of
act.
the
Additionally,
constraints plans
act
hopes
act.
plans,
they
set
know or to
speaker
an assertive,
with
believe
speech
that
response
The speech the
the
a
also
of
speech
terms
may be modified
to
needs speech
in
assertive,
an
that
states)
speaker
enable
are
a
problem
an action
express
belief
P. This
There
make a given that
states sort
in
belief
the
to
wants
of
contained
which
the
with
description
Hence when making
cognitive
that
plan
speaker
operators.
(presupposed
order
the
wants.
his
expresses
things
a schematic
what
final
The
acts.
deal
by of
maintaining
operating pragmatic face,
with
speech
what
a set in
act
within
the
maxims.
These
the
authority
-225-
between
relationship between
the
the
of
type This
meaning
an
extension
plan
as
act
of
base
the
of
to
recognise
in This
speech
of
an explanation
describes
community.
model
distance
speaker
as
works
it
as
social
act.
a whole
language
the
and the
enable
speech
verb
a particular
act
some
its
detail
may be
the
considered produced
generation
Five.
This
theory
conversational
not
discourse
particular
act I
theories analysis,
is
to
believe of
dissolves
only
analysis
of
explanation
the
a speech
Chapter
Finally,
to
response
of
within
those
The same plans
schematic
use
in
two.
and hearer
speaker
linguistic
(at
the
but
it
be performed
within
this
is
that
work
politeness.
appropriate
a
level)
describes
also
of
between
distinction
the
language
some
importance
and how
a
community. as
an
-226-
References
Abbeduto
L.
Rosenberg
and
S. (1985).
Presuppositions Child Akmajian
A,
Demers
R. A.
Language
In
Computational
Natural Menlo
A. R. (1958)
M.
J.
An Press.
MIT
language
natural
R. C. (eds.
Berwick
and
)
MA.
Cambridge,
Discourse.
Modal
Alethic
Cambridge
Sentences.
English
Children's
Production
Commissive
of
Speech
15, pp. 411-423
Lang.
How to
to
pp. 100-103.
Understanding
J. W. (1988b) . Children's J. Child of Promising. J. L. (1962).
Logic
Deontic
of
Cambridge.
Press.
J. Child
Acts.
Park.
Planning
J. W. (1988a).
Benjamin-
Understanding.
Language
67,1958,
D. E. (1985). University
Austin
from
of
Reduction
.A Mind
Logic.
Astington
Verbs.
Press.
Cummings.
Astington
Brady Models
J. F. (1987).
Appelt
the
Linguistics:
Communication.
and
intentions
Recognizing
utterances.
Anderson
Cognitive
of
Mass.
J. F. (1983).
Allen
Other
R. M. (1988).
Harnish
and
to
Cambridge,
MIT
Knowledge
12, pp. 621-641.
Introduction
Allen
Know and
of
Lang.
Children's
15, pp. 157-173
Lang.
do things
Speech Acts
the
of
University
Oxford
words.
with
Press. Bach
K.
and
Berry
Bock
Press.
Introduction
to
M. (1975) . and Systems. Is M. (1982) . Workshop, J. K.
and
Toronto
1982.
A. (1983).
Boyd
J.
and
Thorne
Journal
A 1983,7,
Pragmatics.
of
The
M. E. (1981). Ask
and Reply
and
Mass.
Structure
I:
Linguistics
London.
Batsford.
Teacher
How Children Boguslawski
Systemic
an Unanalysed
Hornsby
Communication
Linguistic Cambridge
MIT
Acts.
Speech
Berry
R. M. (1979).
Harnish
Tell. to
J. Jef
Ninth
Concept?
Development Child
of
Lang.
Verscheuren.
Systemic
Directives:
8, pp. 151-163. Journal
of
pp. 633-635.
The Semantics
J. P. (1969) . 5,1969, Linguistics,
pp. 57-74.
of
Modal
Verbs.
-227-
Brown
P.
and Levinson Interaction. Markers
S. (1979).
Social
In
K.
in
Scherer
Speech.
Structure,
and Giles
Cambridge
Groups
and
(eds. ) Social
H.
University
Press.
Cambridge. Brown
P.
and Levinson Language
Burton
S. C. (1987).
Usage.
D. (1981).
(eds. Kegan
and
P. L. (1981).
) Paul.
Children's
Comparing
University
Child
Studies
Cambridge.
Press.
In Coulthard
in
Discourse
M. and Analysis.
London.
Understanding Adult
and
in
Some Universals
Spoken Discourse.
M.
Routledge Carrell
Cambridge
Analysing
Montgomery
Politeness:
of
Indirect
Comprehension.
J.
Requests: Child
Lang.
8, p. 329-345.
Chisholm
R. M. (1963). Lo ic.
Coates
Contrary-to-Duty
The
Children
Deontic
and
2 4,1963, pp. 33-36.
Analysis
J. (1988).
Imperatives
Acquisition
Aged
the
of
Eight
Meaning
Twelve.
and
in
Modality
of
Child
J.
Lang.
15, pp. 425-434.
Cohen P. R.
ACL Chicago,
Department
Dore
C. J. (1983)
J. (1977)
to
Understanding
Yale
University
1978.
Science.
Reading,
Children's
116.
Report
Computer
Wesley.
and Rationality.
Computer
Application:
Stories.
of
. Discourse
Speech Acts
pp. 49-60.
An Introduction
. Addison
Systems.
Database
Volume
II.
R.
(ed. )
Mass. In Freedle
Acts.
Illocutionary
Comprehension
Erlbaum
Production.
and
NJ.
Hillsdale H. (1979)
Dreyfus
Script
Newspaper
of
1985.
July
R. E. (1978).
Cullingford
Date
H. J. (1985).
and Levesque
.
What
Can't
Computers
Harper
Do.
and
Row.
New York.
Feys
R. (1937).
D.
and
In
Introduction. Introductory Fraser
B. (1990). Pragmatics,
Fraser
B.
and Nolan Linguistic
and
on
An Logic:
Deontic
Reidel.
Dordrecht. J.
Politeness.
of
pp. 219-236.
14,1990,
W. (1981). Form.
Readings.
Systematic
Perspectives
(ed. )
R.
Hilpinen
pp. 517-553. Logic:
Deontic
R. (1971) .
Hilpinen
Revue
Modalities. 40,1937,
Vol.
de Philosophie.
Neoscholastique Follesdal
des
Nouvelles
Logiques
Les
The Association
International
Journal
of of
Deference the
with
-228-
Sociology Gazdar
G.
(1981). B. L.
Language, 27,1981,
of
Speech Sag
and
Understanding. Gazdar
G.
Good
and N. V.
Goffman
E.
(1972).
D. (1982).
Grice
How to
)
Academic
Gu
. Language
Words.
W.
Meaning Holdcroft Holdcroft
D.
Semantics
and
and
In
Cole
Vol.
3:
14,1990, An
D. (1986b).
D. (1986c).
D. (1986d).
the Syntax
New York.
P.
and
Morgan
Speech
Acts.
Natural
pp. 1067-1076. in
Child
2,513-527.
Lang.
in
Guide
Darmstadter
Modern
Chinese.
J.
of
Synonyms
to
Grammar.
Functional
to
Related
and
Darmstadt.
Blätter.
Logic:
Introductory
Systematic
and
Dordrecht.
Acquisition J.
Modals. Words
in
pp. 237-257.
Modern
J. (1982).
D. (1986a).
Public
J. L.
Transition
Introduction
Reidel.
of
Tokyo.
Child
Phenomena
Deontic
(1978).
Pragmatic
Conversation.
J.
Pragmatic
Holdcroft
Press.
Development.
Pragmatic Holdcroft
Academic
-
Pragmatic Holdcroft
Acts.
Morgan
Constative
Verlag
the
words:
and
Performative
. London.
& Weil
P.
1979,
Readings.
Hirst
Cole
with
IJCAI
R. (1971).
Hilpinen
do things
Communication.
S. I. (1969).
London. of
Issues
Politeness
Arnold.
Press.
Smith
In
New York.
M. A. K. (1990)
Hayakawa
Speech
Syntax
Pragmatics, Halliday
Relevance.
of
Objectives:
.
J. (1975)
Y. (1990).
In
Utterance
Language
Cambridge.
Microstudies
to
people
and
Press.
B. J. (1979)
Gruber
3:
Logic
. J. L. (eds.
Grosz
get
question.
Semantics
H. P. (1975)
Webber Discourse
of
Press.
Academic
Public:
A. K.,
Elements
University
Knowledge.
Joshi
Harmondsworth.
whimperative and
)
On a Notion
in
Pelican.
In
(eds.
Cambridge
Relations
G. (1975).
Assignment.
I. A.
(ed. ) Mutual
Order. Green
Act
pp. 93-109.
Child
and Deeds.
Conversational Workshop,
Deontic
9, pp. 659-666.
Clarendon
Press.
Oxford. Lectures,
Relevance
I.
Relevance
II.
Lectures,
Relevance
III.
Lectures,
Relevance
IV.
Lectures,
Dubrovnik.
Conversational Workshop,
and
Dubrovnik.
Conversational Workshop,
Lang.
Epistemic
Dubrovnik.
Conversational Workshop,
of
D'.:brovnik.
-229-
Holdcroft
D. (1991). (ed. )
Holdcroft
D.
Houtkoop
On
Searle
and
Smith
Computation.
Ablex
Everyday
9,1985, G.
Discernment
J.
K. (1985)
Proc.
Theory
University
of
Ninth
In
Johansen
J. D. Odense
Current
Plan
of
Research
Recognition.
Rochester, Theory
Tech
1985.
July Belief
of
Introspection.
Logic
Regional
Academic
Politeness:
of
Corium
In
Therapeutic
Conversation.
as
The
Q's.
pp. 257-279.
pp. 193-218.
D. (1977).
Fanshel
.
of
1985, pp. 502-508.
Psychotherapy R. (1973)
Aspect
and Linguistics.
14,1990,
a
IJCAI, and
10,1986,
Politeness:
Computational
.A
Modal
Odense.
Pragmatics,
162.
Report
to
A Neglected
(eds. ) Pragmatics
Towards
and
Units
Pragmatics
Introduction
Japanese:
Linguistic
H. (1985).
Lakoff
and
of
and Rationality:
Press.
Issues.
W.
Philosophy
Discourse
and
Journal
Pragmatics,
of
Politeness
G. (1990).
Labov
in
J.
University
Konolige
and
London.
. and Sonne H.
Kautz
Turns
M. J. (1968).
Methuen.
A. (1986)
Kasper
H. (1985).
Conversation.
Politeness.
Kasher
(ed. )
Acts
1990.
Cresswell
ic.
S. (1986).
Benjamins
Speech
S.
J.
pp. 595-619:
and Lo
Verscheuren John
P. W. H. (1990). Torrance
Mazeland
and
In
Conversation.
on
In
in
Ide
on Conversation.
Computation.
H.
Hughes
Searle
C.
et
Meeting
or
Discourse: Press.
New York.
Minding
(eds. ) Papers
al.
Chicago
The
of
Your
P's
from
The
Linguistic
Society. Le
G. (1974).
Bonniec
G.
Leech
(1983).
Principles
G. (1987).
Raisonnement
etude
modal:
Mouton.
Paris:
genetique.
Leech
Le
of
Meaning
Longmans.
Pragmatics.
and
the
London. Longmans.
Verb.
English
London. Levinson
S.
C. (1983).
Pragmatics.
Cambridge
C. H. (1932).
Symbolic
Press.
University
Cambridge. Lewis
C. I.
and
Langford
Logic.
Dover.
New
Analysis:
An
York. Litman
D.
(1985).
Plan
Integrated University
Recognition
Approach of
Rochester,
and for NY.
Discourse
Understanding TR170
1985.
Dialogues.
-230-
Locke
J. (1691)
.
Dover.
Lyons
An
Essay
Concerning
Human
Understanding
New York.
J. (1977).
Semantics
2.
Cambridge
University
Press.
Cambridge. Maltby
R. and Boublil
McCawley
A. (1989).
J. D. (1981). Wanted
Everything
to
M. (1975) Winston
Polanyi
- Libretto. Linguists
but
Logic
have
Always
Ashamed
were
Ask.
to
Oxford. Framework
.A
Hill.
Saigon that
Know about
Blackwell. Minsky
Miss
for
Representing
P. H. (ed. ) Psychology
Knowledge.
Computer
of
Vision.
In
McGraw-
New York.
L. (1988).
A
Discourse.
Formal
Model
Journal
12,1988.
Prgamatics
of
Structure
the
of
of pp. 601-
638. A. (1978).
Pomerantz
Compliment
operation
of
Studies
in
R.
Academic
Reeder
K. (1980)
. Lang.
Child Reichman
Rich
Grammar
of
Skills.
J.
Harlow. Illocutionary
of
Computers
Getting
You
Like
Talk
to
and
Me.
Mass.
Cambridge,
Press.
E. (1991).
University
A
7, pp. 13-28.
R. (1985). MIT
New York.
Press.
Emergence
The
(ed. )
J.
Conversational
of
S. (1973).
Longman,
English.
Co-
the
on
Schenkein
In
Organisation
the
Greenbaum
and
Notes
Constraints.
Multiple
Interaction. Quirk
Responses:
New
McGraw-Hill.
Intelligence.
Artificial
York. (1977).
E. D.
Sacerdoti
Elsevier, Sacks
A
E. A.
H., Schegloff
for
Schank
Schank
Press.
R. C.
the
Organization 50,4
Simplest
A
in
Turn-Taking
of
pp. 696-735.1974. Theory
a Linguistic
of
Acts.
Speech
New York.
Conceptual
R. C. (1975). Holland.
and
Toward
(1974).
Academic
Behaviour.
and
G. (1974).
Jefferson
Language
Conversation. J. M.
Plans
New York.
Systematics
Sadock
for
Structure
Information
North-
Processing.
Amsterdam.
and Abelson
Understanding.
R. P. (1977).
Scripts, Erlbaum.
Lawrence
Plans,
Goals
Hillsdale,
and New
Jersey. Schegloff
E. A. (1972).
Sequencing
in
Conversational
Openings.
-231-
In
Gumperz
J. J.
Sociolinquistics Schegloff
Holt,
E. A. (1988). Speech
Act
Theory
Schegloff
Jefferson
Preference
for
Schiffrin
Schiffrin
in
E. A.
G.
Journal
Sacks
and
in
Language H. (1973).
R. (ed. )
Penguin
Harmondsworth.
the
of
Handbook
of
Opening
Dialogue.
pp. 35-46.
In
Analysis, Academic
Discourse
The
Organization
of
Closings.
up Selected
Argument.
Discourse
H. (1977).
53, pp. 361-382.1977.
Ethnomethodology:
Everyday
D. (1987).
Applying
Conversation.
Self-Correction
Turner
D. (1985)
New York.
Indirection:
and
in
Directions
Winston.
and
Ordinary
)
pp. 55-62.
Sacks
T.
Press.
Readings.
Van 3.
vol
In
(ed. )
Dijk
Discourse
and
London. Cambridge
Markers.
University
Cambridge.
C. F., Sridharan
N. S.
Recognition
and
Problem:
Artificial
Goodson
J. L. (1978).
An Intersection
Intelligence.
11,1978. Searle
Rinehart
Convesation.
and
Press. Schmidt
to
12,1988,
E. A.,
Repair
D. H. (eds.
Presequences
Pragmatics Schegloff
Hymes
and
The
Plan
Psychology
of
and
Intelligence
Artificial
pp. 45-33.
J. R. (1969).
Speech
Cambridge
Acts.
Press.
University
Cambridge. Searle
J. R. (1979).
Expression
University Searle
J. R. (1986).
Notes
on Conversation.
Der
Van
and
and
Language
and
Associates. Foundations
D. (1985).
Veken
Cambridge
Logic.
Illocutionary
in
Issues Erlbaum
Lawrence
D. G.
Ellis
In
) Contemporary
(eds.
Processing.
Discourse J. R.
Cambridge.
W. A.
Donahue
Searle
Press.
Cambridge
Meaning.
and
of
University
Press.
Intended
Response
Cambridge.
Sidner
in
Recognition 1,1985,2. Sinclair
of
The
Requests
Dissertation. Sinclair
J. M.
and
Discourse: Oxford
Intelligence
Computational
Discourse.
pp-1-10-
J. M. (1976). Form
for
Parsing
Plan
C. L. (1985).
used
University Coulthard the
University
Significance
Sociolinguistic in
Service of
Press.
Encounters.
the
Diploma
Cambridge. Towards
R. M. (1975). English
of
Used London.
by
Teachers
an Analysis and
Pupils.
of
-232-
Smith
C. J. (1970).
Synonyms
Discriminated
Gale
Research
Co.
Detroit. Smith
P. W. H. Theory
Smithies
Holdcroft
and
D.
Speech
of
(1990).
Acts
Pragmatics
at
M. (1984).
How Not
Issue.
Towards In
John
Computational
a
Verscheuren
(ed. )
J.
Benjamins.
To Lose Face.
Federal
Publications.
Singapore. Sperber
D.
and Wilson
in
Theories
Knowledge. Sperber
D.
Terasaki
Academic
Press.
D. (1986).
Pre-announcement
. Science
University
G. H. (1951)
A. R. (1975)
On
. Modal
.
Report T.
and
Cognition.
Logic.
Ablex.
and
Conversation.
School
Social
of
Irvine.
Promise.
on
Mind
J.
of
60,1951, pp. 1-15.
Blackwell. Speech Press.
Ph. D. Thesis.
Flores
in
99.
California,
Understanding
140.
(ed. ) Mutual
Communication
Sequences Paper
Thinking.
Academic
R. (1978).
N. V.
pp. 629-632.
English
Dictionary.
Smith
London.
Boguslawski
Deontic
A. (1987).
Wierzbicka
of
1983,7,
In
Relevance
and
Oxford.
Working
J. (1983).
Knowledge
Relevance:
A. (1976)
Pragmatics
Winograd
Comprehension.
Blackwell.
Verscheuren
Wilensky
Mutual
Cognition.
Science.
White
of
Wilson
and
Social
Von Wright
D. (1982)
F. (1986). Norwood,
Act
Oxford. Verbs:
A
Semantic
Sydney.
Goal-Based Yale
University
Understanding New Jersey.
Stories.
Research
1978. Computers
and
-233-
Appendix
I
The
material incomplete,
considered idea
of
speech into
extended dependent
a very
a
telephone
The
starts
to
specified
as
Four it
of
those
been
only
Form,
commonly
rang
you earlier
achieved
dialogue
used
of
response discourse
a proposed
Coulthard.
and
free
a context
in
markers
Sinclair
of
be
heavily
initiation
the
the
can
is
a recorded
with
a description
lines
Backus-Naur
using
(Chomsky to
specify
but
you
Type
2)
computer
languages.
programming
Dialogue
Sample
[1]
is
has
be
how
discourse
this
and
It
demonstrate Chapter
of
best
at
However,
indicating
similar is
grammar
grammar,
pairs
level.
section
along
grammar,
in
analysis
act
must
to
discourse.
conversation, next
appendix
described
for
speech
the
an attempt
detailed
a
rudimantary
The
pairs.
is
pairings
a structure
with
at
it
act
upon
conjunction
in
contained
I
there,
Hello
A:
Possibly
- Report:
[Initiationl
to
explain
reason
for
were not
out.
ringing
earlier]
[2]
B:
D's
mum's.
two.
[12]
[3]
A:
I went
[4]
[5]
[Unexpected
Oh,
and I'll
do coffee
[6]
B:
Itchee
[7]
A:
Insteada
[8]
B: Alright.
I'm
a good hour
well
content]
V's Not -
up about
ringing
tomorrow
V's
in
have been at and a half
to
[re-orientation]
[13]
alright?
[R3]
Yes fine
we've
been
I must
[R2]
then
shopping
But
propositional
B: How uz things,
A:
propositional
[Responsel]
Oh [Unexpected
content]
morning.
[Meta-speech
[Meta-speech
[R4 - accept
act
tomorrow
[14+]
act
- clarification]
- clarify]
commissive]
actually
[I4]
-234-
[9]
A:
of
supplementary
me to
Coz there's
do it.
material]
B:
Yes
[11]
A:
Yes she's
[12]
B: Oh that's
A:
[R4+]
For
V's
fine
She's
good.
awhile
B:
Yes,
[15]
A:
Yes
[Acknowledge
[16]
B:
And
we're
[18]
[Marker
So
- additional]
it'll
for
went
his
be an opportunity
for
for
me,
X-Rays
sick
summary]
[Repair]
so...
How's
D
[R6]
on Friday.
for
the
[R5]
night
[IR5
alright.
for his
[I5]
down last
- marker
waiting
on Monday
she?
came with
-M
[14]
he
is
I popped
[16]
[17]
I thought
alright
anyway?
doctor's
[14++
[I4+++]
[10]
[13]
no bag meeting
R6+]
now he has
results,
to
go to
the
[R6+/17]
note.
A: Mm? [R7]
information
So [Supplementary
B:
marker]
how
see
we'll
he
[17+]
gets
on
[19]
A: And is
[20]
B: Yes his
[21]
A:
Oh that's
[22]
B:
Yes
[23]
A: Yes
up on the
[24]
B:
him.
[R10]
[18]
he any better?
back
has been much better
good
[IR8
- expressive]
[R8]
two days.
last
the
The pain's
gone?
[19]
[R9]
[Self
X-rays,
No we'll
You know whether
orientation] or
just
not?
have
anything
will
show
[I10]
to
wait
and
see
But
it's
better
with
-235-
[25]
A: Muscles
[26]
B: Could
A Structure
in
used
(BNF) used
to
this
first
2 (context
free)
it
possible
discourse.
which
has
then
be
roughly
of
a set
it
least
at
not
to
as simple
one
exchange.
a it
as is
structure
exchanges:
upon
forward
put
quite the
of
a means of Based
grammar.
of
the
A
the
its
head a marker
transaction The exchange
conversation.
initiation-response
the has at
has the
in
a topic
heart
exchange
hence
is
level
top
with
its
at
preliminary topic,
the
consists
must
corresponds
it
BNF is
En)
there
where
is
However
At
(E2E3...
Ep
cycle
Backus-Naur
upon
languages.
a Chomsky type
appears.
transaction
based
computer
for
structure
is
section
represent
initiation-response
the
[R11]
Discourse
notation
representing
[Ill]
really.
have been yes
for
The Form
I think
to
pairing.
The
introduce
the
form:
itself
Then a response
body
with
of
consists an optional
an initiation
body
by
followed
comment body.
() body
Initiation set
consists with
elaborations
of
of
an optional
by an
followed
an initiation
terminator. ()*
optional
() is
itself
Initiation Chapter
Four)
Elaboration
:: = primary
speech
by a connective
terminator
of that
The
response
act.
:: = the
speech
act
when the
speaker
Each elaboration hence
marker,
indicates
occurs
normally
primary
act
speech
a primary
:
the
simply
in
(defined
we have
initiation
he has finished
sequence and is
may be connected
section the
after
on
continues
structure:
primary occurs expecting
when
The
act
speech the
speaker
a response.
primary :. = body is quite complex and may consist
speech of
a
act meta-
-236-
section,
a response
Finally the
it
with
or without
may or may not
a preceding
be followed
response
marker.
by an initiation
body
from
hearer.
:. _
I
The
and
is
meta-section
consists
followed
two meta-speech
of
by a normal
in
earlier
:: = secondary consists
discourse
the
be represented
:: = By the is
only
marker
then
defined
(
act
must
By the
of
way is
which
is
the
serves
to
attach
sensistive
here
because
and hence
the
can only
grammar. )
introducing
ways of
recognized one example. speech
act
of
the
initiator
an expressive
normally
:: = andibut
be typed
to
grammar
as follows:
:: = expressive allows
down
free
wayl...
set
a small
to
exchange
finish
speech
act.
another,
it
may
find
is
... to
one sequence
be
absent.
marker may be
:. = Sol ... that
I
have
been
able
to
others.
:. _
I
I
the
-237-
:: = ohi...
The dialogue be thought
to
various
and
act
How uz
B:
Yes
the
meant
respect
to
is
just
the
occurs
there
when
an
Coz
extended,
marks
although
they
where
to
want
but
sometimes, end
the
using
not
marker
material: no bag
there's it'll
be
an
indicate
that
something
me
So
[Marker]
to
do
do coffee
tomorrow
- Not
needs
I it.
part
and
clarifying: [Initiation]
actually
and
[Elaboration]
morning. for
clarification
act
Clarify] -
what
Schiffrin
[Request
V's?
initiation
the
after
tomorrow
up about
ringing
Itchee
for
opportunity
immediately
occcur
I'm
[Initiation].
meeting.
material]
sections
B:
exchange
may be
[Supplementary
I'll
not
alright?
speaker
thought
A:
of
things,
supplementary
usually
with
is
markers.
form
sections
Meta
particularly
it
fine.
Initiation
A:
be an outline,
a response:
A:
always
to
meant
as exhaustive
simplest
initiation
of
of
non-speech The
is
structure
:. = wellt...
- Meta-speech
act] A:
[Response]
B: Alright. for
markers information
expected
I rang
B:
Oh
that
pattern. acts
as responses.
we've
been
I in
the
must
you were have
a good
hour
(1987)
response as a
and
follow
does not
means
decoding
of
[Initiation]
out.
been
calls
propositional
an unexpected
may serve
but
you earlier
[Orientation]
But
indicate This
speech
A:
indicate
often
They may also
indirect
and
orientation management
content. the
[Meta-speech
V's.
Insteada
at
D's
a half
[Response]
mum's. to
two.
[Initiation].
A:
Oh
shopping
[Orientation] then.
well
[Information
management]
I
went