Illocution of direct speech acts via conventional implicature and semantic presupposition

Open access

Abstract

The research introduces the notion of the additional illocution subdivided into illocution-expander, illocution-intensifier, and assessment illocution. Each component is characterized by a different type of correlations with conventional implicature and semantic presupposition. Two types of correlations have been specified: the match in meanings and triggers and the mediation by felicity conditions.

Abbreviations:CI

– conventional implicature

DSAI

– direct speech acts' illocution

SP

– semantic presupposition

References

  • Abbott, B. (2000). Presuppositions as nonassertions. In Journal of pragmatics, 32 (10), p. 1419-1437.

  • American heritage dictionary of the English language, fifth edition. (2011). Available at: http://www.Thefreeddictionary.com/manage

  • Ariel, M. (2012). Research paradigms in pragmatics. In The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K.M. (eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 23-45.

  • Austin, J.L. (1976). How to do things with words: The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bach, K. (1984). Linguistic philosophy and speech acts communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

  • Bach, K. (1994). Conversational impliciture. In Mind & language, 9, p. 124-162.

  • Bach, K. (2012). Saying, meaning, and implicating. In The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K.M. (eds.). New York: Cambridge University Press, p. 23-45.

  • Bach, K. (1998). Standardization revisited. In Pragmatics: Critical assessment. Kasher, A. (ed.), IV. London: Routledge, p. 712-722.

  • Bach, K. (1999). The myth of conventional implicature. In Linguistics and philosophy, 22 (4), p. 367-421.

  • Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn. Birner, B. & Ward, G. (eds.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, p. 21-30.

  • Bach, K. & Harnish, R.M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge-MA: MIT Press.

  • Beaver, D. (1997). Presupposition. In The handbook of logic and language. Van Benthem, J. & A. ter Meulen, A. (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier, p. 939-1008.

  • Beaver, D. (2001). Presupposition and assertion in dynamic semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

  • Beaver, D. & Condoravdi, C. (2003). A uniform analysis of “before” and “after”. In Semantics and linguistic theory XIII. Young, R.B. & Zhou, Y. (eds.). Cornell, Ithaca: CLC Publications, p. 37-54.

  • Bellow, S. (1970). Herzog. New York: Fowcett Crest Book.

  • Carston, R. (2008). Linguistic communication and the pragmatics / semantics distinction. In Synthese, 165 (3), p. 321-345.

  • Carston, R. (2004). Truth-conditional content and conversational implicature. In The semantics / pragmatics distinction. Bianchi, C. (ed.). Stanford: CSLI, p. 65-100.

  • Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: University Press.

  • Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. In The philosophical review, 66, p. 377-388.

  • Foolen, A. (2015). Word valence and its effects. In Emotion in language [Consciousness & emotion book series, 10]. Lüdtke, U.M. (ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, p. 241-256.

  • Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, 3: Speech acts.

  • Grice, H.P. (1969). “Utterer's meaning and intentions”. In The philosophical review, 78, p. 147-77.

  • Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.). New York: Academic Press, p. 41-58.

  • Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Heim, I. (1992). Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. In Journal of semantics, 9, p. 183-222.

  • Heim, I. & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Horn, L.R. (2004). Implicature. In The handbook of pragmatics. Horn, L. & Ward, G. (eds.), p. 3-28.

  • Horn, L.R. (2007a). “Neo-Gricean pragmatics: a Manichaean manifesto”. In Pragmatics. Burton-Roberts, N. (ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave, p. 158-183.

  • Horn, L.R. (2007b). Towards a Fregean pragmatics. Voraussetzung, Nebengedanke, Andeutung. In Explorations in pragmatics: Linguistic, cognitive and intercultural aspects. Kecskes, I. & Horn, L.R. (eds.), p. 39-69.

  • Karttunen, L. (1974). Presuppositions and linguistic context. In Theoretical linguistics, 1, p.181-194.

  • Karttunen, L. & Peters, S. (1979). Conventional implicatures in Montague grammar. In Syntax and semantics, 11: Presupposition. Oh, C.-K. & Dineen, D. (eds.), p. 1-56.

  • Karttunen, L. & Zaenen, A. (2005). Veridicity. In Annotating, extracting and reasoning about time and events. Katz, G., Pustejovsky, G. & Schilder, F. (eds.). Paper presented at Dagstuhl Seminar. Available at: http://drops.dagstuhl.de/opus/volltexte/2005/314/

  • Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In Progress in linguistics. Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. (eds.), p.143-173.

  • Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Levinson, S.C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Lincoln, S.Y. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications.

  • Obama, B. (2014). Obama's speech on combating ISIS and terrorism (10 September 2014). Available at: http://www.edition.cnn.com/2014/09/10/politics/isis-obama-speech/index.html

  • Padučeva, H.V. (1077). Notion of presumption in linguistic semantics. In Semiotics and informatics, 8 (in Russian), p. 91-134.

  • Potts, C. (2005). The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford studies in theoretical linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Potts, C. (2007). Into the conventional – implicature dimension. In Philosophy compass, 4(2), p. 665-679.

  • Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Recanati, F. (2004). Pragmatics and semantics. In The handbook of pragmatics. Horn, L.R. & Gregory, W. (eds.), p. 442-462.

  • Rieber, S.D. (1997). Conventional implicatures as tacit performatives. In Linguistics and philosophy, 20 (1), p. 51-72.

  • Roberts, C., Simons, M., Beaver, D.I. et al. (2009). Presupposition, conventional implicature, and beyond: A unified account of projection. In Proceedings of new directions in the theory of presupposition. Klinendinst, N. & Rothschild, D. (eds.). Available at: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=bmBoSA4AAAAJ&hl=de

  • Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. (2013). Meaning construction, meaning interpretation, and formal expression in the lexical constructional model. In Linking constructions into functional linguistics: The role of constructions in grammar. Brian, N. & Diedrichsen, E. (eds.). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, p. 231-270.

  • Sadock, J.M. (1994). Toward a grammatically realistic typology of speech acts. In Foundations of speech act theory: philosophical and linguistic perspectives.

  • Sadock, J.M. (2004). Toward a realistic typology of speech acts. Available at: http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/f09/semprag1/sadock.pdf

  • Saul, J.M. (2002). “What is said and psychological reality: Grice's project and relevance theorists' criticisms”. In Linguistics and philosophy, 25, p. 347-72.

  • Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle, J.R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Language, mind and knowledge. Gunderson, K. (ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, p. 344-369.

  • Searle, J.R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle, J.R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle, J.R. (1980). What is a speech act? In Language and language use. Pugh, A.K., Leech, J.V. & Swann, J. (eds.). London: Heirman Educational Book in association with the Open University Press, p. 312-327.

  • Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction. London: Sage Publications.

  • Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In Proceedings of semantics and linguistics theory, 11. Hastings, R., Jackson, B. & Zvolensky, Z. (eds.). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, p. 431-448.

  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, London: Sage Publications.

  • Strawson, P.E. (1974). Subject and predicate in logic and grammar. London: Methuen.

  • von Fintel, K. (2004). Would you believe it? The king of France is back! Presuppositions and truth-value intuitions. In Descriptions and beyond. Reimer, M. & Bezuidenhout, A. (eds.). Oxford University Press, p. 269-296.

  • Yule, G. (1996 / 2008). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lege Artis

Language yesterday, today, tomorrow

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 110 110 81
PDF Downloads 19 19 15