Speech Acts & Language Functions

PragmaticsNot only language structure is rule governed –

language use is, tooRules of language use are social: ”Is saying

this ”possible?” / ”feasible?” / ”appropriate?” / ”done?” (Dell Hymes)

Oxford 1930’s-1940’s: ”Ordinary Language Philosophers” John Austin

(The early) John AustinLanguage is not only about making true/false

statements (cp. Logical Positivism)Language is also performing social actions,

cp.:

Constatives = true/false statementsThe car is in the garageHitler died in 1945Nitric acid dissolves zink

Performatives = social actions ”saying is doing”

I declare this bazaar openGo get my slippersI’ll pay you tomorrow

Performatives = social actions ”saying is doing” if the speech act is ”felicitous”:

- I declare this bazaar open (but not anybody is authorized to do this)

- Give me one million dollars!(but speaker may happen to know 2nd person doesn’t have one million)

- I’ll pay you tomorrow(but speaker may not intend to do this)

Felicity conditions= conditions to be fulfilled for utterances to be

”felicitous” performatives

Explicit performatives use performative verbse.g. promise, recommend, warn, babtize, order

However, apparent ”constatives” can also be performatives: ”It’s hot in here! ”

– and what action is being performed here:

”(I don’t have the money with me) – can you manage until tomorrow?”

The later Austin drops the Constative/Performance distinction

- and now talks only about

SPEECH ACTs

a. Locutionary acts: pronouncing meaningful sentences

b. Illocutionary acts: expressing intentionc. Perlocutionary acts: affecting the listener

(a), (b) and (c) happen simultaneously– to be separated by analysis only

Can you reach the salt?– the title of Carol Henriksen’s anthology

Locutionary meaning?Illocutionary force?Perlocutionary effect?

The perlocutionary effect is not necessarily the intended one!

Austin’s How to Do Things with Words (1962)

became the foundation of PRAGMATICS

– carried on by two equally famous students of his:(from ”Ordinary Language Philosophers”):

John SearleH. Paul Grice

John R. Searle”Speech Act” in Searle = Austin’s ”Illocutionary Act”

aims to group illocutionary acts into categoriesbased on ”constitutive rules” (cp. Austin’s ”felicity

conditions”)

Constitutive rules – e.g. those making up game of chess

(as opposed to)Regulative rules – e.g. ”one should not swear in

public”

Thus ”promise” (”I’ll bring the book tomorrow”) based on 9 constitutive rules, e.g.:

Preparatory conditions (rules 4 & 5)

(4) H would prefer S’s doing A to his not doing A

– S believes that H feels that way

(5) It isn’t obvious to both S and H that S would do A anyway

Sincerity condition (rule 6): S intends to do AEssential condition (rule 7): S intends that

saying the sentence will place him under an obligation to do A

Categories of Speech Act (Searle)

RepresentativesDirectivesCommissivesExpressivesDeclaratives

Cp. p. 45 of your Readings

Propositions and function indicating devices1. Bill, open the window!2. Would Bill open the window, please?3. Bill opened the window4. Did Bill open the window?5. I forbid Bill to open the window!

Proposition: Bill + open + the windowWhat are the (pragmatic-) function indicating

devices in each example?

Ex. of utterances without propositional content: Yes/yea

/mm, hurrah, ouch, OK

”Indirect Speech Acts”Problem: ”Representatives” are often ”indirect

directives”

e.g. x. You’re standing on my foot!

Primary illocutionary force of (x): Directive

Secondary illocutionary force of (x): Representative

We can distinguish because of principles of cooperation (Searle refers to Grice!)contextual factors

Linguistic conventions

in Indirect Speech Acts:”Can you reach the salt?””Would you mind opening the window?”

– certain syntactic constructions, e.g. interrogative clauses introduced by a ”modal verb” (can/could, will/would, etc.)

= (potential) performative signals by convention

to express degrees of ”POLITENESS”

H. Paul Griceelaborates further on how to get from the

literal meaning of Can you reach the salt? to the illocutionary force of Pass the salt!

the cooperative principle

– cooperation about the production of meaning

Cooperativenessmeans observing 4 ”maxims”:

1. Quantity: Make your contribution neither less nor more informative than is required

A. Where do you live?B. In the neighborhood.

cp. B. In the little red house over there – in the basement – my wife won’t let me sleep in the bedroom …

(Grice’s maxims, continued)

2. Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true

= Do not say what you know to be falseAND= Do not say that for which you lack adequate

evidence

3. Relation: Be relevantBut then, how do we take up new aspects of the topic,let alone change the topic?

(Grice’s maxims, continued)

4. Manner: Be perspicuousi. Avoid obscurity of expressionii.Avoid ambiguityiii.Be brief (cp. 1st maxim, quantity)iv.Be orderly

”Implicature” = exploitation of the maxims

Hearer expects cooperation –• seeing some breaches of the maxims as

meaning strategies • intended to be interpreted as such

”Implicature” = exploitation of the maxims

– and the Hearer’s ability to infer the intended meaning

cp.

(1) A. You look unhappy(2) B. I have to be in Copenhagen in an hour

and a half, and I can’t make it by train(3) A. I’ve got a car(4) B. That would be absolutely wonderful –

are you sure it’s 0k?

”Implicature” = exploitation of the maxims

– and the Hearer’s ability to infer the intended meaning

cp.

(1) A. You look unhappy(2) B. I have to be in Copenhagen in an hour and a

half, and I can’t make it by train(3) A. I’ve got a car – and I’m willing to lend it

to you(4) B. That would be absolutely wonderful – are

you sure it’s 0k?

(”Implicature” = exploitation of the maxims)

QuantityLast night John was not drunk

QualityOf course I’d love to take out the garbage

(irony)His two gorilla’s were guarding the door

(metaphor)McCarthy was a little touchy about Communists

(understatement)Danish TV is always boring

(generalization / overstatement / hyperbole)

(”Implicature” = exploitation of the maxims)

Relationin most cases relevance is only apparently broken:”… I’ve got a car” (example above: implicit

relevance)when there is a change of topic

but significant violation of the maxim in e.g.Look – what a beautiful day!

by way of diverting attention after someone has committed a social blunder!

(”Implicature” = exploitation of the maxims)

MannerObscurity, ambiguity, prolixity to show that S finds

the subject ticklish, or is being devious:

”My English text is chaste, and all licentious passages are left in the decent obscurity of a learned language” (Gibbon’s Autobiography)

Polonius suggests we should ”by indirections find directions out”(Hamlet II.1)