元言外词汇能告诉我们关于言语行为分类的什么

IF 1.8 1区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Dominik Jan Schoppa
{"title":"元言外词汇能告诉我们关于言语行为分类的什么","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

基于言语行为理论和语言哲学,言语行为分类法的研究(Searle, 1975)采用二阶方法来区分话语的上级功能类型,从而在很大程度上忽略了一阶视角。另一方面,一阶语用学主要研究普通语言使用者对孤立的言语行为的概念化(Schneider, 2022;[Schoppa, 2022)。本研究通过探索三种指示性语用(请求、命令、乞求)和三种表达性语用(感谢、道歉、祝贺)的元语用词汇的一般使用模式,试图扩展一阶语用学的范围。虽然这些使用模式直接反映了各自言语的一阶概念化(幸福),但它们进一步被认为共同构成了相关言语行为类别一阶概念化的间接证据。基于来自GloWbE语料库的博客数据,结果包括,虽然对指示性言外语的引用倾向于支持元言外语词汇的描述性使用类型,但对表达性言外语的引用通常由执行性使用类型主导。这些和其他的研究结果是在言语行为分类法、约定俗成和话语中言语行为的情境性等背景下讨论的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What the meta-illocutionary lexicon can tell us about speech act taxonomies
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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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