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.
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.
