Pragmatics 4[1]

Pragmatics 4

PAGE 7

Pragmatics 4

Outline: A. Recap

B. Indirect Speech Acts - Indirect directives (Searle)

C. Parameters of indirectness

A. RECAP

Criteria for the classification of speech acts (Searle)

Classes of speech acts

Criticism of Searle's classification

B. INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS

John R. Searle 1979 'Indirect Speech Acts' in Expression and Meaning, Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press.

1. Defining indirect speech acts

Sentences in which the speaker means exactly and literally what he says - the easiest to get the meaning of.

(1)Birds have wings.

Q: Can you think of types of utterances in which the meaning intended by the speaker and the sentence meaning differ?

(2)a.You are soo helpful, son! (mother, to son who refuses to wash dishes)

b.She has a broken heart.

(3)Can you pass the salt?

DefinitionIndirect speech acts: 'speech acts in which one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by performing another illocutionary act.' (Searle 1979: 31)The problem of indirect speech acts: How it is possible for the speaker to say one thing and mean that thing but also to mean something else?

How does the hearer understand what the indirect speech act is when the sentence he hears means something else?

Searle's answer:Indirect speech acts can be explained using:

the theory of speech acts

the principle of cooperative conversation - Be relevant!

mutually shared background information about the Speaker and the Hearer

the Hearer's ability to make inferences.

Q: Which is the Indirect Speech Act in (4)?

(4)a.Tom: Let's go to the movies tonight.

b.John: I have to study for an exam.

c.John: I have to tie my shoelaces.

Q: Which act in (4b) is more important for the communication bt Tom & John? => primary illocutionary act = refusal

secondary illocutionary act = statement (the literal meaning)

Q: How does Tom understand that John is refusing from John's making a statement about his student duties?

How does Tom derive the non-literal primary illocutionary act from understanding the literal secondary illocutionary act ?

2. Deriving the primary illocution from the secondary illocution - the steps for the indirect rejection of a proposal

Searle: the indirect SA is derived through rational thought - a process of reasoning = making inferences

The steps of this reasoning (finding out which is the primary illocutionary act from the secondary, literal illocutionary act)

Step 1: I have made a proposal to John and in response he has stated that he has to study for an exam

Step 2:1 assume that John is cooperating in the conversation and that therefore his remark is intended to be relevant

Step 3 : A relevant response must be one of acceptance, rejection, counterproposal, further discussion

Step 4: But his literal utterance was not one of these, and so was not

a relevant response.

Step 5 : Therefore, he probably means more than he says. Assuming that his remark is relevant, his primary illocutionary point must differ from his literal one

Step 6: I know that studying for an exam normally takes a large amount of time relative to a single evening, and I know that going to the movies normally takes a large amount of time relative to a single evening (factual background information).

Step 7 : Therefore, he probably cannot both go to the movies and study for an exam in one evening.

Step 8: A preparatory condition on the acceptance of a proposal, or on any other commissive, is the ability to perform the act predicated in the propositional content condition, but this preparatory condition is not met in this case (theory of speech acts)Step 9: Therefore, I know that he has said that he probably cannot accept the proposal,

Step 10: Therefore, his primary illocutionary point is probably to reject the proposal Q: Do we go consciously through these steps in normal conversation?

Directives are suitable for the study of indirect illocutionary acts - why?

Which is the indirect speech act in (5)?(5)a.Leave the room!

b.I order you to leave the room

c.I wonder if you would mind leaving the room.

3. Types of sentences that can be used to produce indirect directives

Searle makes an inventory of the sentences that could be used to make indirect requests and orders & finds that they can grouped in several categories

Group 1(6)a.Can you pass the salt?

b.Could you be a little more quiet?

c. Are you able to reach the book on the top shelf?

The sentences in (6) are concerned with .........................................

Group 2(7)a.I would like you to go now.

b.I want you to do this for me, Henry.

c.I would/should appreciate it if you did it for me.

d. I should be most grateful if helped us out.

e.I'd rather you didn't do that any more.

f.I wish you didn't do that.


Group 3

(8)a.Officers will henceforth wear ties at dinner.

b.Aren't you going to eat your cereal?


Group 4

(9)a. Would you be willing to write a letter for me?

b.Do you want to hand me that hammer over there on the table?

c.Would you mind not making so much noise?

d.Would it be convenient for you to come on Wednesday ?

e. Would it be too much (trouble) for you to pay me back?


Group 5

(10)a.You ought to be more polite to your mother

b. You had better go now.

c. It would be a good idea if you left town

d. It might help if you shut up

The sentences in (10) .........................................

Group 6: Sentences embedding one of these elements inside another; also, sentences embedding an explicit directive illocutionary verb inside one of these contexts.(11)a. Would you mind awfully if I asked you if you could write me a letter?

b. Would it be too much if I suggested that you could possibly make a little less noise?

c. I hope you won't mind if I ask you if you could leave us alone

d. I would appreciate it if you could make less noise.

Q: What are the sentences in (11) concerned with and what are the explicit directive illocutionary verbs used?

(11a) - (11b) - (11c) - (11d) - 4. Properties of indirect directives

1) Such sentences do not have an imperative illocutionary force as part of their core sentence meaning. (12)a. I'd like you to do this for me.

b. I'd like you to do this for me, Bill, but I am not ordering you to do it

c. Can you reach the salt?Q: Do speakers and hearers have access to both the indirect SA and the direct SA?

2) when one of these sentences is uttered with the primary illocutionary point of a directive, the literal secondary illocutionary act is also performed.

(13)a."Can you reach the salt?"

b."He asked me to give him the salt.

c. "He asked me whether I could reach the salt.

(14)a. Can you reach the salt?

b.No, I can't. It's too far away.

c. Yes, here you are.

2) Such sentences are conventionally used to issue directives

(15)a.I want you to stop making that noise, please!

b.Could you please lend me a dollar?

"please" - highlights the primary illocutionary point - directive,

- the literal meaning of the rest of the sentence is not directive.

Q: How can these sentences, which have one illocutionary force as part of their meaning be used to perform an act with a different illocutionary force?

(16) The 6 groups of sentences:

the hearer's ability to perform an act the speaker's wish that the hearer will do the act

the hearer's doing the act

the hearer's desire or willingness to do the act

suggest it is reasonable to do the act (give reasons why the act should be done)

mixed types

Each type of illocutionary act has a set of conditions that are necessary

for the successful performance of the act.

What are the felicity conditions for directives (requests)?

(17) Conditions for directives (Requests)

Propositional content condition: Preparatory condition:

Sincerity condition:

Essential condition: Let us compare the list of felicity conditions for the directive class (17) with the list of sentence types used for indirect directives (16).

Q: Is there any correspondence bt (16) and (17)

The first 3 groups of sentences correspond to the felicity conditions for direct directivesGroup 1 - the hearer's ability to perform an act - related to... Group 2 - the speaker's wish that the hearer will do the act - related to Group 3 - the hearer's doing the act - related to Group 4 - the hearer's desire or willingness to do the act

Group 5 - suggest it is reasonable to do the act (give reasons why the act should be done)

the hearer's desire to do the act - is a reason to do the act

=> Groups 4 & 5 can be united - sentences related to reasons for doing the actGroup 6 - mixed type; embedding one of the elements above inside anotherConclusions so far:1) There is a systematic relation between felicity conditions of the direct speech acts and the sentence types used for indirect directives

2) Stating or questioning a felicity condition of a Direct Speech Act will produce an indirect version

Instead of saying (18) = a direct speech act, we may use the strategies in (19)(18) Please come home!

(19)a. Can you please come home?

b. I want you to come home

c. Will you please come home? 2) Sentences used to perform indirect directives can be reduced to three types:

- those having to do with felicity conditions on the performance of a

directive illocutionary act- those having to do with reasons for doing the act- those embedding one element inside another one.Generalizations on indirect directives

What mechanisms can we use to produce indirect directives?

1) S can make an indirect request by ....(20)a. Could you be a little more quiet?

b.You could be more quiet!

2) S can make an indirect directive by ....(21)a. Will you please come to dinner?

b.Officers will henceforth attend dinner at 4.

3) S can make an indirect directive by.....

(22)a.I would like you to go now.

b.??Would I like to go now?

4) S can make an indirect directive by ....(23) a. It would be a good idea if you left town

b. Wouldn't it be a good idea if you left town?

c.Would you like to give me that hammer?

General conclusions:

Indirect speech acts can be explained through 4 elements:

1) the speakers' ability to make inferences2) principles of coversational cooperation - speakers and hearers have to produce utterances that are relevant for that particular conversation

3) the theory of speech acts (felicity conditions on speech acts)

4) speakers' reliance on background information

Indirect directives may be produced by questioning or stating felicity conditions of direct directivesN.B. Certain syntactic forms (e.g. types of sentences) tend to become

conventionally established as the standard idiomatic forms for indirect speech acts.

While keeping their literal meanings, they will acquire conventional uses as, e.g., polite forms for requests. e.g. - "can you", "could you", "I want you to" - conventional ways of making requests

C. PARAMETERS OF INDIRECTNESS

Thomas (1995): ...indirectness occurs when there is a mismatch between the expressed meaning and the implied meaning (1995: 119).

Four major claims:

1. pragmatics is concerned with intentional indirectness

unintentional indirectness may be caused by linguistic inadequacy

(24)Give me that... that thing...you know... the thing I'm looking at.2. indirectness is costly and riskycostly:

risky: 3. Speakers should (seek to) obtain some social or communicative advantage through employing indirectness

4. Searle: Politeness is the most prominent motivation for indirectness in requests

Why does one use indirectness?

(25)Adult to teenager:

A: Would you like to listen to something else now?

B: No, Im pleased with Britney.

(26)Editor to a researcher who submitted a paper for publication:

In your paper, you slightly run the risk of being accused of using cognitive theories on metaphor in an unprincipled way...

(27) Professor to the Chief Librarian:

Have you given any thought to having me subscribed to Journal of Pragmatics?

(28) MA programme director to student rep:

The newly-registered Romanian students arrive by the midnight train from Manchester. There are no buses to the Lancaster campus after 11.30. I dont know whether they have any money on them and cabs are hard to get even around the station. The keys to the staff van are with Jack the porter. Theyll love to see a friendly face when they get off the train.

Choice of indirectness over directness varies according to cultural and social rules: => British vs Romanian society?

BUT there are invariant social factors which govern indirectness in all languages and cultural communities:

1. The relative power of the Speaker over the Hearer

2. The social distance between the Speaker and the Hearer

3. The degree of imposition entailed by the act in question

4. The relative rights and obligations between the Speaker and the Hearer

1. PowerQ: Who will use a greater degree of indirectness? subordinates/superiors?

- hierarchical settings:...

Spencer-Oatey (2000): 3 types of power influence the use of indirectness in conversations:

1) Legitimate power = exerted when one person has authority by virtue of their social or professional role, age or status

(29)a.Student to Lecturer: I would be extremely grateful if you could approve a weeks extension to the deadline of my paper.

b.Lecturer to Secretary: Please make 14 copies of chapter 3 for the course tomorrow.

2) Referent power = the power held by one person over another by virtue of the respect or admiration inspired.

(30)Dear Beth, I was really fascinated with your presentation. Could you send me the draft in attach if this is not too much trouble?

3) Expert power = the power conferred to a certain person owing to their knowledge or expertise

(31) Dear Professor X, Your latest article in Cognition would be of crucial importance in my research. Would there be any way for me to get a copy?

2. Social distance

Social closeness - rel. bt. relatives, peers, people who are similar to you in terms of age, status, ethnicity, occupation

Social distance - rel. bt. strangers, superiors

Q: Who will use a greater degree of indirectness? socially close / distant individuals?

(32)a.Got any change, Jay?

b.Excuse me, could you change fifty pence for me?

I need tens or fives for the coffee machine.

3. Degree of imposition

Requests: difficult tasks => greater degree of indirectness

4. Rights and obligations

(31)a.Next stop!

b.Do you think you could possibly let me out just beyond the traffic lights, please?

PAGE 7

Documents

Pragmatics 4[1]