Speech Act Theory, Discourse Structure and Indirect Speech Acts ...

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