What the meta-illocutionary lexicon can tell us about speech act taxonomies

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Dominik Jan Schoppa
{"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.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
18.80%
发文量
219
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信