INTERPERSONAL MEANING II (Direct&Indirect Speech Act)

INTERPERSONAL MEANING II

I.                  Direct & Indirect speech acts

v   The direct illocution of an utterance is the illocution most directly indicated by a literal reading of the grammatical form and vocabulary of the sentence uttered.

v   The indirect illocution of an utterance is any further illocution the utterance may have.

v   Example:

a.       The direct illocution of “Can you pass the salt?” is an enquiry about the hearer’s ability to pass the salt.

b.      The indirect illocution is a request that the hearer pass the salt.

v   The difference between direct and indirect illocution is seen through the fact that a pedantic or deliberately unhelpful reply can be given to an utterance which has both kinds of illocutions.

v   For example, in reply to “I must ask you to leave” one might say, thwarting the intentions of the first speaker: Must you?”

Direct and indirect illocutions

v   Direct illocution

      The illocution that is directly interpreted literally.

v   Indirect illocution

      The further illocution that goes beyond the utterance may have.

v   Examples

      Can you pass the salt?

v  Direct illocution

      Do you have the ability to pass the salt?

v  Indirect illocution

      A request to pass the salt.

      It is cold in the room.

      Direct illocution?

      Indirect illocution?

Classes of illocutionary acts

v   Directive acts

An illocutionary act which involves the speaker trying to get the hearer to behave in some required way.

-          Ordering, suggesting

v   Commisive acts

An illocutionary act is any illocutiuonary act which essentially involves the speakers committing himself to behave in some required way.

-          Promising; apologizing, swearing.  

II.               Proposition & Illocution

(Meaning again)

      Sentence meaning

      What a sentence means, regardsless of the context and situation in which it may be used.

      Utterance meaning

      What a speaker means when he makes an utterance in a particular situation.

            The gap between sentence meaning and utterance meaning is least noticeable when speakers are being direct (i.e. not being ironic, or diplomatic, or polite).

            Politeness is one of the main motivations for using an indirect illocution in preference to a direct one.

Propositional content

v   The propositional content of a commissives illocution can be expressed by a declarative sentence describing the action which the speaker undertakes to perform.

            The propositional content of a directive illocution

            Expression of a declarative sentence describing the action that the speaker requires of the hearer.

            The propositional content of a commissive illocution

            Expression of a declarative sentence describing the action which the speaker undertakes to perform.

v   The propositional content of a directive illocution:

v   ‘I would like you to make a cup of coffee.’

v   You will make a cup of coffee for me.

v   ‘Don’t panic!’

v   You will not panic.

v   The propositional content of a commissive illocution:

v   (in a class) you volunteer to offer a solution to a very difficult math problem.

-          I will solve the math problem.

v   (talking with your friend) You promise to buy your friend a cup of coffee if she sings a song in public.

-          I will buy you a cup of coffee if you sing a song in public.

III.           Conversational implicature

v   Implicature is a concept of utterance meaning as opposed to sentence meaning, but is parallel in many ways to the sense relation (i.e. sentence meaning concept) of entailment.

v   Furthermore, implicature is related to the method by which speakers work out the indirect illocutions of utterances.

v   Implicature is a matter of utterance meaning, and not of sentence meaning.

Introduction

v  Conversational implicature is the phenomenon whereby a speaker says one thing and thereby conveys (typically, in addition) something else. For example, in ‎(1) below, Harold says that Sally should bring her umbrella, but further conveys that (he believes that) it is likely to rain. This is a standard case of the phenomenon under examination.

(1)   Sally:    What’s the weather going to be like today?

      Harold: You should bring your umbrella.

v  Conversational implicature was identified and named by the philosopher Paul Grice in his paper Logic and Conversation, originally presented at Harvard in 1969. Much of today’s linguistic pragmatics has its origins in the insights of that paper, and concerns itself in some fashion with some aspect of conversational implicature.