Johannes Heim, Hermann Keupdjio, Zoe Wai-Man Lam, Adriana Osa-Gómez, Sonja Thoma and Martina Wiltschko
Anderson, Stephen R. 1971. On the linguistic status of the performative/constative distinction . Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Avis, Walter. S. 1972. So eh? is Canadian, eh. Canadian journal of linguistics 17(2). 89–104.
Bach, Kent & Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts . Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Bartels Christine. 1999. The intonation of English statements and questions . New York: Garland Publishing.
Beyssade, Claire & Jean-Marie Marandin. 2006. The speechact
Nikita Probst, Tatiana Shkapenko, Arina Tkachenko and Alexey Chernyakov
in conflict discourse. In Philology &culture , 2 (44), p. 122-125. / Sadykova I.A. Etnorechevyye zaprety v structure konfliktnogo diskursa. In Filologiya i kultura , 2 (44), s. 122-125. / Садыкова И.А. Этноречевые запреты в структуре конфликтного дискурса. In Филология и культура , 2 (44), c. 122-125.
Salgueiro, A.B. (2010). Promises, threats, and the foundations of speechact theory. In Pragmatics , 20 (2), p. 213-228. Available at: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/elanguage/pragmatics/article/download/2569/2569-5290-1-PB.pdf
Sami, S. (2015
Bayer O (2008) Martin Luther’s Theology. A Contemporary Interpretation. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Botha E (2007) SpeechAct Theory and Biblical Interpretation. Neotestamentica 41(2): 274-294.
Cary P (2005) Why Luther is not Quite Protestant: The Logic of Faith in a Sacramental Promise. Pro Ecclesia 14(4): 447-486.
Cary P (2007) Sola Fide: Luther and Calvin. In 30th Annual Symposium on the Lutheran Confessions, Fort Wayne, IN, 17-19 January 2007.
Ebeling G (1964) The
discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed to- wards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris Publica- tions, PDA 1.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1989). Speechact conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 3, 367-383.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1991). The study of argumentation from a speechact perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics at issue. Se- lected papers of the international pragmatics conference, 1987 (pp. 151
pragmatic aspects of the process of communication and their relevance to language pedagogy. Topics in Linguistics , no. 1, pp.53-57.
OLSHTAIN, E. and COHEN, A., 1990. The learning of complex speechact behaviour. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada , vol. 7, no.2, pp. 45-65.
COULMAS, F. ed., 1981. Conversational routine: Exploration in standardized communicative situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton Publishers.
EDMONDSON, W., 1981. ‘On saying you're sorry’. In: F. Coulmas, ed. Conversational routine: Exploration in
Achiba, M. (2003). Learning to request in a second language: A study of Child interlanguage pragmatics .(Vol. 2). Multilingual Matters.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1984). Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of SpeechAct Realization Patterns(CCSARP). Applied linguistics, 5 (3), 196-213.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Olshtain, E. (1986). Too many words: Length of utterance and pragmatic failure. Studies in second language acquisition, 8 (02), 165-179.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in
Persuasion is defined as human communication designed to influence the judgements and actions of others (Simons & Jones 2011). The purpose of this research is to analyse the discourse of persuasion in Shakespeare from the perspective of historical pragmatics (Jucker & Taavitsainen 2010), with particular attention to modals employed as part of the strategies. The modals under investigation are proximal and distal central modals, SHALL/SHOULD, WILL/WOULD, CAN/COULD, MAY/MIGHT, MUST, and the contracted form ’LL. The data for the present study is drawn from The Riverside Shakespeare (Evans 1997) and the concordance by Spevack (1968-1980). The corpus includes both cases where the persuasion attempt is successful and unsuccessful.
After defining persuasion in comparison to speech acts, quantitative analysis reveals how frequently the persuader and the persuadee employ a modal regarding each type of modality and speech act. Further analysis shows in what manner the persuader and the persuadee interact with each other in discourse resorting to the following strategies: modality, proximal and distal meanings of the modal, speech act of each utterance including a modal, and use of the same modal or switching modals in interaction.
This research thus clarifies how effectively speakers attempted to persuade others in interactions, shedding light on communication mechanisms in the past.
policy discourse, which is analyzed here. First, I present the research design of my paper (research methods and research question; sources of data) and after that I turn to the basic theoretical framework of this paper: theory of securitization. Finally, I reflect the key point of this theory – speechact. I will not reflect all speech acts in political or societal discourse but focus on those that manifested anti-Muslim rhetoric. Lastly, in the analytical part of my paper, I will introduce my findings about the characteristics of securitization of Islamophobia during
The purpose of this paper is twofold; first, it aims to explore the variety of interpretations of the partially schematic Hebrew construction kexol as in kexol she’ratsiti (‘as much as I wanted’) within the framework of construction grammar; second, it aims to account for this variety through a demonstration of the interrelation between the grammaticalization of the construction and the process of (inter)subjectification or speech-act orientation. The analysis will show that this interrelation has resulted in considerable internal variation in meaning and function in the present day. Corpus findings reveal that initially kexol functioned as a compound consisting of a preposition and a universal quantifier to denote a relation of similarity and comparison. As a result of speaker orientation, the construction has come to exhibit a higher degree of grammaticality in its function as a scalar modifier. Additional schematic and procedural meanings which developed later seem to be the result of hearer-orientation and discourse-orientation tendencies all subsumed under the cover term speech-act orientation
On Multiple Metonymies Within Indirect Speech Acts
Indirect speech acts are frequently structured by more than a single metonymy. The metonymies are related not only to the illocutionary force of the utterances, but also function within the individual lexemes being their parts. An indirect speech act can thus involve not only multiple, but also multi-levelled operation of conceptual metonymy.