{"title":"What the meta-illocutionary lexicon can tell us about speech act taxonomies","authors":"Dominik Jan Schoppa","doi":"10.1016/j.pragma.2025.01.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Being firmly situated within speech act theory and language philosophy, research on speech act taxonomies (Searle, 1975) takes a second-order approach to distinguishing superordinate function types of utterances, thus largely ignoring first-order perspectives. First-order pragmatics, on the other hand, is dominated by studies on ordinary language users’ conceptualizations of speech acts in isolation (Schneider, 2022; [Schoppa, 2022]). The present study seeks to extend the scope of first-order pragmatics by exploring ordinary usage patterns of the meta-illocutionary lexicon regarding three <em>directive</em> illocutions (requesting, commanding, begging) and three <em>expressive</em> illocutions (thanking, apologizing, congratulating). While these usage patterns directly reflect first-order conceptualizations of (the felicity of) the respective illocutions, they are further argued to collectively constitute indirect evidence for first-order conceptualizations of the relevant speech act classes. Based on blogging data from the GloWbE corpus, results include that while references to <em>directive</em> illocutions tend to favor the <em>descriptive</em> use type of the meta-illocutionary lexicon, references to <em>expressive</em> illocutions are generally dominated by the <em>performative</em> use type. These and other findings are discussed against the background of speech act taxonomies, conventionalization, and the situatedness of speech acts in discourse, among other things.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16899,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pragmatics","volume":"237 ","pages":"Pages 30-41"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216625000025","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Being firmly situated within speech act theory and language philosophy, research on speech act taxonomies (Searle, 1975) takes a second-order approach to distinguishing superordinate function types of utterances, thus largely ignoring first-order perspectives. First-order pragmatics, on the other hand, is dominated by studies on ordinary language users’ conceptualizations of speech acts in isolation (Schneider, 2022; [Schoppa, 2022]). The present study seeks to extend the scope of first-order pragmatics by exploring ordinary usage patterns of the meta-illocutionary lexicon regarding three directive illocutions (requesting, commanding, begging) and three expressive illocutions (thanking, apologizing, congratulating). While these usage patterns directly reflect first-order conceptualizations of (the felicity of) the respective illocutions, they are further argued to collectively constitute indirect evidence for first-order conceptualizations of the relevant speech act classes. Based on blogging data from the GloWbE corpus, results include that while references to directive illocutions tend to favor the descriptive use type of the meta-illocutionary lexicon, references to expressive illocutions are generally dominated by the performative use type. These and other findings are discussed against the background of speech act taxonomies, conventionalization, and the situatedness of speech acts in discourse, among other things.
期刊介绍:
Since 1977, the Journal of Pragmatics has provided a forum for bringing together a wide range of research in pragmatics, including cognitive pragmatics, corpus pragmatics, experimental pragmatics, historical pragmatics, interpersonal pragmatics, multimodal pragmatics, sociopragmatics, theoretical pragmatics and related fields. Our aim is to publish innovative pragmatic scholarship from all perspectives, which contributes to theories of how speakers produce and interpret language in different contexts drawing on attested data from a wide range of languages/cultures in different parts of the world. The Journal of Pragmatics also encourages work that uses attested language data to explore the relationship between pragmatics and neighbouring research areas such as semantics, discourse analysis, conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, interactional linguistics, sociolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, media studies, psychology, sociology, and the philosophy of language. Alongside full-length articles, discussion notes and book reviews, the journal welcomes proposals for high quality special issues in all areas of pragmatics which make a significant contribution to a topical or developing area at the cutting-edge of research.