Chapter 13. Speech Acts and Relevance Theory

Dominicy, Marc; Franken, Nathalie

doi:10.1075/pbns.77.16dom

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But even such a modest enterprise is unlikely to succeed. Many literal and direct utterances of imperative sentences do not correspond to the performance of directive speech acts; many interrogative ones are not used to ask questions; and many indicative sentences, as literal and direct as they can be, do not constitute assertive speech acts (see Wilson and Sperber 1988;Dominicy and Franken 2002;Fiengo 2007;Kissine 2013). As cogently argued by Fiengo (2007), the conventional meanings of sentence types must be carefully distinguished from facts about their use.…”

Section: Criteria Related To Linguistic Formmentioning

confidence: 96%

5. Speech act classifications

Kissine¹

2013

Pragmatics of Speech Actions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Criteria Related To Linguistic Formmentioning

confidence: 96%

5. Speech act classifications

Kissine¹

2013

Pragmatics of Speech Actions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, the fact that in audienceless cases like (59) are subject to the potentiality constraint suggests that potentiality should not be defined relative only to the conversational background, but relative to some relevant body of information (which will most often be the conversational background). In this connection, Dominicy and Franken (2002) observe that the following imperative may be uttered by an archaeologist, who is about to unwrap a mummy, and for whose theory the date of birth of the mummified king is crucial.…”

Section: Potentialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

When terminology matters: The imperative as a comparative concept

Jary

Kissine

2016

Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The imperative should be thought of as a comparative concept, defined as a sentence type whose only prototypical function is the performance of the whole range of directive speech acts. Furthermore, for a non-second-person form to count as an imperative it must be homogeneous with the second-person form, thereby allowing true imperative paradigms to be distinguished from those that recruit alternative structures. This definition of the imperative sentence type allows more accurate crosslinguistic analysis of imperative paradigms, and provides principled grounds for distinguishing between imperative and so-called “hortative” and “jussive” forms. It also helps to clarify the irrealis – or better –

show abstract

“…whenever the CG is such that the represented desire cannot be a reason for A to bring about the truth of its content, what remains is the locutionary act, viz. the representation of a desire (see also Dominicy and Franken, 2002 ).…”

Section: The Directive Pointmentioning

confidence: 99%

Illocutionary Forces and What Is Said

Kissine

2009

Mind & Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A psychologically plausible analysis of the way we assign illocutionary forces to utterances is formulated using a ' contextualist ' analysis of what is said. The account offered makes use of J. L. Austin ' s distinction between phatic acts (sentence meaning), locutionary acts (contextually determined what is said), illocutionary acts, and perolocutionary acts. In order to avoid the confl ation between illocutionary and perlocutionary levels, assertive, directive and commissive illocutionary forces are defi ned in terms of inferential potential with respect to the common ground. Illocutionary forces are conceived as automatic but optional components of the process of interpretation.

show abstract

Chapter 13. Speech Acts and Relevance Theory

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

5. Speech act classifications

5. Speech act classifications

When terminology matters: The imperative as a comparative concept

Illocutionary Forces and What Is Said

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About