Meaning and speech acts

There have been two approaches to classifying speech acts: one, following Austin, is principally a lexical classification of so-called illocutionary verbs; the other, following Searle 1975a, is principally a classification of acts. Austin 1962 identified five classes of illocutionary verbs which were refined and extended to seven by Vendler 1972 as follows. Glosses are from Austin 1975:151-61 and structural descriptions are from Vendler, whose N="NP", V="verb", p="proposition (sentence)", nom="gerund" or other nominalization.

Expositives 'expounding of views, the conducting of arguments and the clarifying of usages and of references' (N_i V that p), e.g. state, contend, insist, deny, remind, guess
Verdictives 'the giving of a verdict' (N_i V N_j (as) N or Adj) e.g. rank, grade, call, define, analyze.
Commissives 'commit the speaker' (N_i V to V) e.g. promise, guarantee, refuse, decline.
Exercitives 'exercising of powers, rights or influences' (N_i V N_j to V) e.g. order, request, beg, dare
Behabitives 'reaction to other people's behaviour and fortunes' (N_i V N_j P nom (past (V))) e.g. thank, congratulate, criticize.

Vendler's two extra classes:

Operatives (N_i V N_j to be/become N_k ) e.g. appoint, ordain, condemn.
Interrogatives (N_i V wh-nom (p)) e.g. ask, question.

Katz (1977:50-57) critically examines Vendler's analysis. A more extensive lexical classification is Ballmer and Brennenstuhl 1981: they present a thesaurus-like lexicon where verbs are grouped according to an illocutionary property such as Make a hidden appeal, which includes bitch at, carp about, grumble, murmur, mutiny, nag, pout, rumble, sulk, whine, and wrangle (p.73); and there is Put someone to flight, which includes chase away, chase off, discharge, dismiss, drive away, drive back, force out, frighten away, kick out, oust, put to flight, scare off, see off, send packing, squeeze out, and throw out (p.100). Ballmer and Brennenstuhl identified speech act verbs using the formula exemplified in 39-40.

39. Jo ______ "Why me?" [e.g. whined]
40. Jay ______ "Don't let me see you here again!" [e.g. chased him off with]

Their classification of 4,800 verbs into 600 categories comprising 24 types in eight groups was made (as it is by other scholars) on an intuitive basis in terms of semantic similarity. Wierzbicka 1987 makes a much more explicit semantic analysis of 270 speech act verbs, grouping them into 37 classes. E.g. her Promise class contains promise, pledge, vow, swear, vouch for, and guarantee.

Searle 1975a lists 12 differences between speech acts that can serve as bases for classification, but he uses only four of them to establish five classes of speech acts.

(a) ILLOCUTIONARY POINT (see the quote at the head of this paper). For instance, a request attempts to get Hearer to do something; an assertive is a representation of how something is; a promise is the undertaking of an obligation that Speaker do something.
(b) DIRECTION OF FIT between the words uttered and the world they relate to: e.g. statements have a words-to-world fit because truth value is assigned on the basis of whether or not the words describe things as they are in the world spoken of; requests have a world-to-words fit because the world must be changed to fulfill Speaker's request.
(c) THE EXPRESSED PSYCHOLOGICAL STATE: e.g. a statement that p expresses Speaker's belief that p; a promise expresses Speaker's intention to do something; a request expresses Speaker's desire that Hearer should do something.
(d) PROPOSITIONAL CONTENT: e.g. Hearer to do A (i.e. perform some act) for a request; Speaker to do A for a promise. The five kinds of speech act Searle recognizes are:

Assertives (called representatives in Searle 1975a) have a truth value, show words-to-world fit, and express Speaker's belief that p.
Directives are attempts to get Hearer to do something, therefore they show world-to-words fit, and express Speaker's wish or desire that Hearer do A.
Commissives commit Speaker to some future course of action, so they show world-to-words fit, and Speaker expresses the intention that Speaker do A.
Expressives express Speaker's attitude to a certain state of affairs specified (if at all) in the propositional content (e.g. the bolded portion of I apologize for stepping on your toe). There is no direction of fit; a variety of different psychological states; and propositional content must be related to Speaker or Hearer (1975a:357f).
Declarations bring about correspondence between the propositional content and the world; thus direction of fit is both words-to-world and world-to-words. Searle recognizes no psychological state for declarations.

Bach and Harnish (1979:42-51, 110f) employ all of Searle's criteria except direction of fit, giving prominence to Speaker's psychological state -- which they refer to as Speaker's 'attitude'. They identify six classes, splitting Searle's 'declarations' into effectives which effect changes in institutional states of affairs; and verdictives which have official binding import in the context of the institution for which they are made. Declarations (to use Searle's term) are different from the other classes of 'interpersonal' acts.

Definition. Assertives, directives, commissives, and expressives are INTERPERSONAL ACTS, typically directed at individuals. To take effect, they require Hearer to react to Speaker's illocution -- mere understanding of the illocutionary point is insufficient.

It is pointless for Speaker to tell Hearer it is raining, warn Hearer of danger, or offer Hearer condolences if Hearer fails to react appropriately to what Speaker says.

Definition. DECLARATIONS are typically broadcast within a social group, and rely for their success on Speaker being sanctioned by the community, institution, committee, or even a single person within the group to perform such acts under stipulated conditions. Provided the stipulated conditions are met, Hearer's reaction as an individual is irrelevant to the effectiveness of the declaration (e.g. being baptized, disqualified from driving, or fired).

Significant for declarations is the reaction of the group which sanctions Speaker. Compare the interpersonal opine that p (e.g. I think history is bunk) with the declaration declare the verdict p (e.g. Speaker, umpiring a game at the U.S. Open Tennis Tournament, declares the ball Out!)

Because declarations rely for their success on Speaker being sanctioned by the community, etc. it may be necessary to safeguard society's interest with an executive condition which requires some watchdog other than Speaker to ensure that clauses (ii)-(v) of the precondition hold. Note the legalistic character of the declaration.

Speech acts can be grouped into four classes if we use HEARER'S EVALUATIONS as criteria (cf. Allan 1994b,c).

Statements (including denials, reports, predictions, promises, and offers) can all be judged in terms of the question "Is p credible?" These are principally expressions of Speaker's belief about the way the world was, is, or will be, and are most typically formulated with a declarative clause.
Invitationals are a proper subset of Searle's directives, and include requests, exhortations, suggestions, warnings, etc. They have acceptability values: "Does Speaker really want A done, and if so is Hearer both able and willing to do it?" These principally invite Hearer's participation, and many are formulated in an interrogative clause.
Authoritatives include the rest of Searle's 'directives' and his 'declarations' (i.e. commands, permissions, legal judgments, baptisms, etc.) for which Hearer must consider the question "Does Speaker have the authority to utter U in this context?" These principally have Speaker "laying down the law"; many of them are formulated in an imperative clause, the rest in a declarative.
Expressives (greetings, thanks, apologies, congratulations, etc.) have social- interactive-appropriacy values: "Has something occurred which warrants Speaker expressing such a reaction to it?" These principally express social interaction with Hearer; many are idiomatic, the rest are in the default declarative clause format.

It is notable that all classes of speech acts can be conveyed using a declarative clause; but interrogatives typically indicate invitationals, imperatives typically indicate authoritatives, and idioms typically indicate expressives.

A comparison of these different classifications is Fig.2.

Happily, there is great similarity in the speech act definitions of Searle 1969, Bach and Harnish 1979, Edmondson 1981, Levinson 1983, Allan 1986, and Wierzbicka 1987 despite the different perspectives. To identify the critical components of a definition we review six definitions of assertives. For easy comparison, clauses in the definitions which serve similar functions are identified by a common label.

Searle's 'propositional content' is the complement of the speech act verb and excludes its meaning -- unlike the 'description' ascribed to other scholars. Searle's term for 'illocutionary intention' is 'essential condition'.

By 'intention' they mean a "reflexive intention".

All these definitions are an expansion of the semantics of the key verb (e.g. assert) naming the illocution. However, most utterances do not contain such a verb, and Hearer must recognize the illocution without its help; the way this is accomplished is discussed later. Most scholars refer to utterance content, identified above as 'description' and 'propositional content'. Searle's definition refers to the content of the proposition that is asserted (p) and, unlike most other scholars, does not include a description of utterance content as a whole. He (correctly) believes that the same proposition may be used to express different illocutionary forces which are indicated outside of p by what he calls 'illocutionary force indicating devices' (IFIDs) captured in his 'essential condition'. This causes a problem, for instance, in his definition of thank (for), where the propositional content is 'Past act A done by H' (Searle 1969:67). Corresponding components in other definitions of thank are

'In uttering U, S thanks H for D if S expresses ...'     (Bach and Harnish 1979:52)
'S expresses thanks to H for D'     (Allan 1986)
'I say: I feel something good towards you because of that'     (Wierzbicka 1987:214)

We see that Searle's propositional content has nothing in particular to do with thanking. Moreover, it is inaccurate for utterances such as Thank you for joining me or Thanks. If you plan to adopt Searle's theory, you need to choose between rectifying his definition and abandoning his 'propositional content' component in favor of a <description> which will include it.

Both Searle's second precondition, 'It is not obvious to both S and H that H knows (does not need to be reminded of, etc.) p' and Wierzbicka's 'I imagine some people would say this is not true' offer reasons for Speaker making the assertion rather than keeping quiet (Wierzbicka identifies a class of people who disagree with Speaker's belief and whom Speaker hopes to persuade that p is true; this point is applicable to the semantics of assert but not of state). Instead of including such conditions in the fine detail of an individual semantic definition, they can be stated within a general set of cooperative presumptions applicable to all speech acts.

Searle and Wierzbicka identify a sincerity condition; this is not a necessary component of the definition, because sincerity can be subsumed to the cooperative maxim of quality applicable to every speech act in a form given in §4.

The illocutionary intentions for assertions fall into two parts: the first identifies Speaker's commitment to belief that p; the second, Speaker's presumed intention towards Hearer. The latter can be inferred from general cooperative presumptions about Speaker's purpose in uttering the assertion to Hearer, and so does not need stating in the definition.

We see from the review of six definitions of assertives that their obligatory components are description, precondition, illocutionary intention. The same holds true for all other classes of speech act; for definitions of which, the reader should turn to the works cited.

To top

6. PRESUPPOSITIONS AND PRECONDITIONS ON ILLOCUTIONS

VINCENTIO: Come hither, you rogue. What, have you forgot me?
BIONDELLO: Forgot you! No, sir. I could not forget you, for I never saw you before in all my life.

(Shakespeare Taming of the Shrew V.i.49)

The statement of what Austin and Searle call 'preparatory conditions', which we abbreviate to PRECONDITIONS, is obligatory in definitions of illocutions. The preconditions identify what ought to be presupposed in a felicitous use of the illocution, cf. Karttunen and Peters 1979:10. In this section we argue that presuppositions are preconditions on illocutions.

Everyone who knows a little of French history knows that 41 is false in the world we inhabit.

41. In 1990, France had a bald King.

France did not have a bald King in 1905 either, when Bertrand Russell claimed that 42 is false.

42. The present King of France is bald.

Both 41 and 42 entail that the King of France has extension at the relevant time.

41a. There was in 1990 a King of France.
42a. There is a King of France.

Both 41a-42a are false, hence, by modus tollens 41-42 are false. 42a is also entailed by all of 43(a-e), thus they too are false (or similarly faulty if such a valuation is not appropriate to 40(b-e)).

43.

(a) The present King of France is not bald.
(b) Where's the King of France gone?
(c) Is the King of France attending Di and Chuck's wedding?
(d) Shoot the King of France!
(e) That damned King of France!

In the tradition of Frege 1892, Strawson 1950 said that a sentence like 42 does not entail but falsely PRESUPPOSES⁵ 42a. The fact that both 42 and 43(a) presuppose 42a gives rise to the standard definition of presupposition, which uses the classical relation of entailment.

Definition of semantic presupposition. If A entails B and not-A entails B, then A presupposes B.

In addition to definite NPs, there are many other kinds of presupposition triggers: Karttunen identified 31 according to Levinson 1983:181 (cf. Gazdar 1979:127). We list just a couple here. Factive predicates such as know, realize, regret, be aware, be glad, be indifferent, be proud, that, be odd, be sad, be sorry presuppose the truth of their complements.

44.

Jo regrets (doesn't regret) kissing Eric presupposes Jo kissed Eric.
Does(n't) Jo regret kissing Eric? presupposes Jo kissed Eric.

Verbs of judging presuppose their sentential complements:

45.

Sue accused (didn't accuse) Ed of having an affair with Shiela presupposes Ed has been having an affair with Shiela
Sam blamed (didn't blame) Suzie for their being late presupposes Sam and Suzie were late
Mike forgave (didn't forgive) Jim for speaking out of turn presupposes Jim spoke out of turn

Implicative verbs like forget (cf. the quote at the head of this section), happen to, have the misfortune to, manage presuppose the truth of their complements in declarative clauses, but not in interrogatives and imperatives. Did Jack manage to speak to Harry does not presuppose Jack spoke to Harry though it does presuppose There is a question about whether or not Jack spoke to Harry. Aspectual verbs like begin, continue, stop, come to and iteratives like return, repeat, another time have aspectual presuppositions.

46.

Harry started (didn't start) to eat presupposes Harry had not been eating before
Jerry stopped (didn't stop) seeing Elaine presupposes Jerry had been seeing Elaine
Harry repeated (didn't repeat) the year presupposes Harry had done the year before
Jack rang (didn't ring) for a third time presupposes Jack had already rung twice

Cleft and heavily stressed NPs have presuppositions such as in 47:

47.

It was(n't) Jack who called presupposes Someone called
JACK went (didn't go) presupposes Someone went

There is logical problem with the standard definition of presupposition:

Problem. By the standard definition, A presupposes B = either A or else not-A entails B

In bivalent propositional logic, 'either A or else not-A' is necessarily true in every logically possible world; it is a tautology and truth conditionally equivalent to every other tautology.

(a)     A tautology cannot (without contradiction) entail a nontautology, therefore what is presupposed must be a tautology.
(b)     Every sentence entails every tautology.
(c)     It follows that every sentence presupposes all tautologies (cf. Katz 1973:258, Boër and Lycan 1976:6).

This violates the intuitive notion of presupposition, and despite the fact that the definition of semantic presupposition appears to account for many cases of presupposition, its consequences are unacceptable.

For a variety of technical reasons Gazdar 1979 and Levinson 1983 argue that semantic presupposition is simply not viable. One, already suggested in Strawson 1950, is that pragmatic presupposition is essentially speaker based in the sense that we interpret A presupposes B as "A indicates that Speaker presupposes B". But it is not always Speaker who does the presupposing; for instance with proprioceptive verbs of thinking and believing, or with verbs of saying:

48. Sam says (thinks, believes, writes) that the King of France is coming to his party, which just goes to prove the guy is nuts.

It is 'Sam' who presupposes there's a King of France; the 'which...' clause implicates that Speaker doesn't. Karttunen 1973 named verbs of this kind 'presuppositional PLUGS'.

Presuppositions are pragmatic because they can be cancelled, unlike semantic/logical relations. For example, 49 cancels the presupposition of 42 and 50 the presupposition in 44.

49. The present King of France isn't bald, because there is no King of France at present.
50. Jo doesn't regret kissing Eric, because in fact she never kissed him in the first place.

These negations have the peculiar property of being refutations that are intuitively quotative -- because it is appropriate to insert words to the effect of as you claim before the comma in 49-50. Many people have distinguished two types of negation: an ordinary negative which does not negate the presupposition, e.g. Jo doesn't regret kissing Eric, and what Seuren 1985 calls a RADICAL NEGATIVE (also misleadingly called 'external' negation e.g. in Gamut 1991) which denies the presupposition as well as the assertion (cf. 49-50). In radical negation the presupposing clause has to be negated, retention of an affirmative creates incoherence as in 51-52.

51. *The present King of France is bald, because there is no King of France at present.
52. *Jo regrets kissing Eric, because in fact she never kissed him in the first place.

The difference between 49-50 and 51-52 arises from the fact that the because clauses in 51-52 entail the falsity of the presupposition in the first clause creating a self- contradiction similar to the phenomenon known as Moore's paradox (Moore 1952:542f), cf. 53 where 'this' = "linguistics is less rigorous than philosophy".

53.

*Linguistics is less rigorous than philosophy, but I don't believe this is true.
*Linguistics is less rigorous than philosophy and I don't know this for a fact!

I don't believe that linguistics is less rigorous than philosophy.
I don't know for a fact that linguistics is less rigorous than philosophy.

In order to observe the cooperative maxim of quality and sincerely utter Linguistics is less rigorous than philosophy, Speaker must (at least pretend to) believe that the proposition is true: all 51-53 are contradictory because Speaker specifically denies this necessary precondition on his or her felicitously uttering the sentence (i.e. Speaker can cancel an apparent presupposition but not deny a presupposition s/he implicitly holds to be true).

Imagine the stress, intonation and tone of voice in which you would utter any of 55.

55.

The door wasn't green [as Harry claimed], it was blue.
George isn't tall and thin, he's short and fat; you're thinking of the wrong man!
There is no King of France, because France is a republic.

All of them are explicitly contrastive and quotative. It is the quotative ('metalinguistic') characteristic of radical negation that distinguishes it from ordinary negation (cf. Seuren 1985:238ff, Horn 1989), but this is not sufficient reason to identify a formal contrast between them. Furthermore, NO language has one morphological form for regular negation and a different form for radical negation. We must therefore conclude that there is only one kind of negation, but we shall retain the phrase radical negation to describe the negating of presuppositions.

The difference between 49 and 51 is proof enough that, when recognized, failed presupposition is indicated by negation. A purportedly true assertion such as The present King of France is bald contradicts an accompanying recognition of its presupposition failure; consistency requires it to be marked as not-true. Strawson 1950 suggested that statements with false presuppositions have no truth value. Quine 1960 dubbed this a 'truth-value gap' which gives rise to trivalent truth {T, F, #} where #="neither true nor false". There are undoubtedly sentences whose truth value is difficult to determine; not only disputed sentences like 41-43 naming a nonexistent King of France, but also those like I've got my mires wuddled and word salads such as This blue and on speak conferenced uply. While none of the foregoing examples are true, they are not indisputably false either. To recognize this fact, we follow Strawson and Quine to admit two kinds of not-true assertions:

Hypothesis. Those sentences that are not-true are either false or INDETERMINABLE.

Indeterminable sentences are best dealt with as a pragmatic problem. One kind of indeterminability arises from a failed precondition on the illocution. For instance, the precondition on France is a republic is "Speaker has reason to believe that France is a republic". If Speaker had said France is NOT a republic we would condemn Speaker for being ignorant, deluded, insane, or maliciously attempting to mislead Hearer. This is exactly the normal response to sentences such as 41-46 that exhibit presupposition failure. In such cases, Austin would say 'the utterance is void' (1975:51). Condemnation as a response to precondition failure is common to all illocutions. Take the precondition on thanking: "Hearer, or someone or something in Hearer's charge, has done some deed D with the apparent intention of benefiting Speaker (directly or indirectly)"; if Speaker thanks Hearer for D when Hearer never did D, Hearer will either conclude that Speaker is deluded or is being sarcastic. Finally, take the case of the tennis player in the U.S. Open who claims his/her opponent's ball is Out when the umpire disagrees: the claim has no standing because the player is not a person sanctioned by the preconditions on this illocutionary act to declare the ball out of play. Again, by violating the precondition, Speaker risks condemnation.

Some inferences that have been described in the literature as presuppositions are more properly to be regarded as either entailments or conventional implicatures because they cannot be cancelled. They do, however, (like all entailments and conventional implicatures) correspond to preconditions on Speaker's use of the illocution. Most propositions in temporal clauses are entailed (pace Levinson 1983:182).

56.

When Zeno was born, isn't known entails Zeno was born
Harry cooked the fish while Sally made the chips entails (Sally made the chips) & (Harry cooked the fish)
Sam told me about the accident before John called entails (John called) & (Sam told me about the accident)

However, the semantics of the main clause may modify the entailment (cf. Heinämäki 1972, Gazdar 1979).

57. Jack died before he finished writing the book entails (Jack died) & (Jack was writing a book)

Here Jack's death terminates an ongoing activity before it reaches its proper conclusion, cf. Jack hit the off-switch before the engine blew and The car broke down before they got to Wagga Wagga (cf. Gazdar 1979). Many CONVENTIONAL IMPLICATURES of verbs have been called presuppositions, e.g. by Fillmore 1971, Lakoff 1971, Levinson 1983. In 58-61, impossible cancellations are given in square brackets.

58. credit NP with/for X conventionally implicates X is praiseworthy & NP is responsible for X

James credited his co-author with the invention that made them millions [*but he didn't believe his co-author had done anything praiseworthy].

59. call NP a bitch conventionally implicates insult NP [denoting a female human, or a gay male human, or an inanimate object]

Max called the young lady a bitch and she bridled at the insult [*but he wasn't insulting her].

60. say NP looks terrific conventionally implicates compliment NP

Fred told Zelda she looked terrific, and she complimented him in return [*but in fact he was insulting her].

61. accuse NP of X conventionally implicates NP deliberately did reprehensible act X

Sue accused Ed of having an affair with Shiela [*but neither Speaker nor Sue thought there was anything wrong with it].

The conversational implicature of 61 is that both Speaker and Sue believe X is reprehensible; it can be cancelled for one, but not both of them. Blame NP for X is similar.

In this section we have rejected the view that presupposition is a well-defined semantic or logical property. The weight of evidence is that presuppositions are the preconditions on illocutions, and presupposition failure arises through a speaker's inability or failure to ensure the correct preconditions for what is said. Such failure causes Speaker to be judged ignorant, deluded, insane, or maliciously trying to mislead Hearer. Like conversational implicatures, presuppositions can be cancelled. If presuppositions arise from the preconditions on illocutions, then they are subject to the maxim of quality. For instance, someone who utters 42 implicates that s/he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proposition it contains is true and therefore implicates 42a. Similarly, the maxim of quality safeguards the implicature from say, 44, that Jo kissed Eric; and so forth for all the examples we have given of presupposition.

Hypothesis. Presuppositions are those conversational implicatures that:

(a) hold under negation, and
(b) relate specifically to the preconditions on the speech act.

The hypothesis that presuppositions are a kind of conversational implicature explains why they share in the feature of cancellability.

To top

7. CLAUSE-TYPE, MOOD, AND PRIMARY ILLOCUTION

The form of the utterance must be the starting point for Hearer's interpretation of its meaning. Thus, in order to fully understand an utterance U Hearer must recognize (a-c):

(a)     The locution <p,e> meaning "m".
(b)     What Speaker intends the locution to refer to.
(c)     The illocutions within U.

Hearer hears the locution, recognizes what Sperber and Wilson in the quote above refer to as 'the linguistic meaning', look to the context to figure out the apparent reference, and then seek to infer Speaker's illocutionary intention (Sperber and Wilson's 'speaker's "meaning"'. Thus intial or primary illocution is signalled by the locution.

Suppose a herpetologist utters one of 62-65 to his or her spouse. 62-65 have a common propositional content: "Hearer's not ever handling the cobra"; the difference in meaning is indicated by the different clause-types or moods (S_n symbolizes "Speaker of n").

62. You never handle the cobra. [S₆₂ makes a statement using the declarative]
63. Do you never handle the cobra? [S₆₃ asks a question using the interrogative]
64. Never handle the cobra! [S₆₄ issues an imperative]
65. (a) Would that you never handle the cobra! (b) If only you were never to handle the cobra ... [S₆₅ expresses a wish using the subjunctive]

Making a statement, asking a question, issuing an imperative, and expressing a wish are distinct illocutionary acts; i.e. Speaker is doing something different in each of 62-65. Because the same proposition is used, the difference must be a function of the different mood in each sentence. Hence:

Hypothesis. MOOD (clause-type) is the initial clue to determining the illocutionary point of the utterance because mood indicates the primary illocutionary force of an utterance.

Thus mood has a very important role in speech act theory.

Grammarians in the western classical tradition have recognized a degree of coincidence between clause-type and illocutionary force at least since the time of Apollonius Dyscolus (100 CE, cf. Householder 1981:12f) and probably since 300 BCE (cf. Diogenes Laertius 'Life of Zeno' VII, 65-68; also Sanctius 1585, Lancelot 1644, Lane 1700, Whitney 1888, Sadock 1974:16f.). Palmer's 1986 monograph distinguishes the interrogative within the modality system, but Lyons 1977 argues against the identification of mood with clause-type because in the western classical tradition both the declarative and the interrogative are indicative in mood. However, there are not only interrogatives like 63 asking about the actual world, but also subjunctive interrogatives like 66 which ask questions about hypothetical worlds:

66. Would you never handle the cobra?

We shall return to the matter of the two interrogatives shortly.

We have identified mood with clause-type and in 62-66 demonstrated that mood, and therefore clause-type, indicates the illocutionary force. Fragments like declarative John in answer to Who's that?, interrogative John? [Is that you?], imperative JOHN! [Where the hell are you!], subjunctive If only! [that were so] are not a problem.

Sadock and Zwicky 1985 surveyed 35 languages representing a wide range of language families and linguistic areas: every one of them distinguishes a declarative to (among other things) make statements, an interrogative to ask things of people, and an imperative to get them to do things. These three moods are orthographically marked by '.', '?', and '!' respectively. Many languages have clause types with other functions -- e.g. optative- subjunctive, expressive-exclamative, prohibitive, imprecative. English has not only the (optative-)subjunctive in 65 and 66, but also expressive(-exclamative) in mostly monolexical nonverb idioms of two kinds: those not necessarily addressed to anyone, 67, and those addressed to Hearer, 68. Note that some imprecatives are listed.

67.

Goodness gracious!
Shit!
Wow!

68.

Thanks.
Please.
Sorry.
Pardon.
Hi.
Bye.
Congratulations.
Asshole!

Some of 68 have idiomatic counterparts with verbs:

69.

Thank you.
How do you do?
Screw you!

Imprecations of third persons appear to be expressives (70-71), but the clauses in 72 are imperative:

70.

X: Suzie found Tom in her own bed with another woman!
Y: Asshole! ["Tom is an asshole"]

71. Fuck him! [NOT= "You copulate with him"]

72.

Apologize to him for me.
Congratulate her.
Thank him.

Often the expressives of 67-71 have similarly idiomatic counterparts in other languages.
We represent mood as an operator on the propositional content of the utterance. For instance, the generalized form of the primary illocution of a DECLARATIVE clause is as follows:

73.

(a) Jack is bald.
(b) Frank loathes Harry.
(c) [Q: Who called? A:] Jack.

We refer to the primary illocution of the declarative clause as a 'declarative' which is not to be confused with a 'declaration'. The declarative performs an act of saying; a declaration performs acts of declaring, effecting, etc. The generalized form of the primary illocution of an INTERROGATIVE clause is:

74.

(a) Will you mail this?
(b) What's the time?

Bearing in mind that many imperative clauses are not at all imperious (cf. 75) the primary illocution of an IMPERATIVE clause is:

75.

(a) Forgive me intruding.
(b) Excuse me.
(c) Let me help you with that.
(d) Have a beer.
(e) Take the first turning on your left and the third on the right.
(f) Have a good day!

The primary illocution of an EXPRESSIVE is:

The primary illocution of a SUBJUNCTIVE is:

76.

(a) I wish I were rich.
(b) I wish I was rich.
(c) Would that I were rich.
(d) If Harry should call, tell him I'll be back this evening.

The subjunctive environment is the complement of a verb of wishing or wanting, invoking the hypothetical world. In 76(a) the past tense form were is also the subjunctive form, but the past tense itself is used to mark the subjunctive in (b) -- the tenses of all 15 are semantically nonpast. A past tense subjunctive would be had been. Note the use of modals would and should in (c) and (d). Conditional if marks a subjunctive clause when the proposition invokes a hypothetical world, so that should can be utilized in a paraphrase -- e.g. (d) is a paraphrase of If Harry calls, ....

English interrogative subjunctives are restricted to requests with only four backshifted modals, cf. 77.

77.

(a) Would you mail this for me?
(b) Could you do me a favour?
(c) Might he be there by now?
(d) Should I write to him?

They are all notably tentative which accounts for their use in polite contexts. They have the following properties:

The form of the interrogative subjunctive suggests that the 'indicative' interrogative has an interrogative operator ranging over a declarative.

The primary illocutions fall into four classes corresponding to Searle's 1975a notion 'direction of fit':

Declaratives show a words-to-world fit: the words match the way the world was or is or will be.
Requests and imperatives both show a world-to-words fit: things are to happen in the world to make it match the propositional content. They differ because Speaker expressly gives Hearer the option not to comply when using a request; whereas with imperatives, Speaker expressly gives Hearer no option but to comply.
For expressives, direction of fit is irrelevant.
Subjunctives fit the words to a hypothetical world.
Interrogative subjunctives seek to fit the actual world to a hypothetical world: things are to happen in the actual world to make it match the words that describe the hypothetical world.

The recognition of mood identifies the primary (or initial) illocution in the utterance, but not Speaker's illocutionary point. It is often assumed that performative clauses, in which the verb spells out the illocutionary point, express their illocutionary point directly (e.g. Gazdar 1981); but the analysis of 78 makes this impossible: the primary illocution of a performative clause is that of a declarative (Cohen 1964, Lewis 1970, Bach and Harnish 1979, Allan 1986).

78. I promise to go there tomorrow.

In 78 the primary illocution is a declarative: "S₇₈ is saying that S₇₈ promises to go there tomorrow." This is not the illocutionary point of 78, however. S₇₈ is using this primary illocution as a vehicle for a further illocution to be read off the performative verb, namely: S₇₈ reflexively intends the (primary) declarative to be a reason for H₇₈ to believe that S₇₈ undertakes and intends (i.e. S₇₈ promises) to go there tomorrow. There is no further inference to draw, so this is the illocutionary point of 78. By definition, then, the performative clause in 78 communicates an indirect illocution.

What additional evidence is there that performatives are declaratives (in illocution as well as form)? First, there is the obvious similarity between 78 and 79.

79. I promised to go there tomorrow.

Unlike 78, which is in the present tense and has the illocutionary point of a promise, 79 is past tense and has the illocutionary point of a statement (or report) about a promise made in the past. The primary illocution of 79 is "S₇₉ is saying that S₇₉ promised to go there tomorrow." This is not the only parallel with 78, because H₇₉ will interpret 79 (subconsciously, and not in so many words) as 20.

80. S₇₉ reflexively intends the declarative to be a reason for H₇₉ to believe that S₇₉ did undertake and intend to go there tomorrow. There is no further inference to draw, so the illocutionary point of 79 is that S₇₉ did undertake and intend to go there tomorrow.

Note that the undertaking in both 78 and 79 remains to be fulfilled; and although S₇₉ is not actually making the promise in 79 as S₇₈ is in 78, nevertheless, provided all normal cooperative conditions hold, S₇₉ is as much obliged to fulfill the promise reported in 79 as S₇₈ is in 78! The presumption that the primary illocution of explicit performatives is that of a declarative permits a commonsensical account of the similarity and difference between 78 and 79.

Second, there is a distinction between saying F and saying that F: the former reports locutions, the latter reports statements. Imperatives and interrogatives do not make statements, but declaratives do; compare 81(a-d).

81.

(a_i) Go!
(a_q) What's your name?

(b_i) I said go.
(b_q) I said what's your name?

(c_i) *I said that go.
(c_q) *I said that what's your name?

(d_i) I said that you must go.
(d_q) I said that I want to know your name.

In order to be reported by saying that, the propositional content of imperatives and interrogatives needs to be recast as the declarative in 81(d); this is not the case with a performative because its primary illocution is already that of a declarative; cf. 82, where no (d) row is needed.

82.

(a_d) The beer's cold.
(a_p) I promise to go there tomorrow.

(b_d) I said the beer's cold.
(b_p) I said I promise to go there tomorrow.

(c_d) I said that the beer's cold.
(c_p) I said that I promise to go there tomorrow.

Third, there is a set of adverbials which modify primary illocutionary acts, e.g. honestly, for the last time, seriously, frankly, once and for all, in the first place, in conclusion (Allan 1986, Jackendoff 1972, Schreiber 1972, Sadock 1974). Consider 83:

83. In the first place I admit to being wrong; and secondly I promise it will never happen again.

83 means "The first thing I have to say is that I admit to being wrong; and the second thing I have to say is that I promise it will never happen again." It is clear that 'secondly' denotes a second act of saying, not a second act of promising; from which we may further deduce that 'In the first place' identifies a first act of saying, not a first act of admitting. There is no space to consider more than these three arguments; but the evidence is strongly against the view that explicit performatives are primary illocutions, because primary illocutions are read off the mood which is in most instances readily identifiable from the clause-type.

To top

8. THE INFERENCE SCHEMA FOR CALCULATING ILLOCUTIONARY POINT

Suppose Speaker S₈₄ utters 84 in context C₈₄, where it answers the question What's the time?

84. [Context C₈₄. Question: What's the time? S₈₄ answers:]

It's 7.45.

Many scholars would call S₈₄'s utterance a DIRECT speech act because S₈₄ means exactly and literally "the time now is seven forty-five." Now, suppose that 85 is uttered in context C₈₅.

85. [Context C₈₅. S₈₅ and spouse H₈₅ car-pool to work; they need to leave home by seven forty-five in order to arrive on time.]

It's 7.45.

Although 85 is still a bald-on-record statement of the current time, it is often called an INDIRECT speech act because the speaker of 85, S₈₅, means at least "it is time to leave for work"; and it is quite likely that S₈₅ further implies "hurry up, you're making us late". We reject the binary distinction between direct and indirect as ineffective: partly because there are many degrees of indirectness, but principally because in recognizing that primary illocution is determined by mood every utterance, even those containing explicit performative clauses, has at least a secondary illocution.

According to Searle 1975b:61 an indirect speech act is one in which Speaker performs one illocutionary act but intends Hearer to infer another illocution -- by relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic. We adopt this notion for the way to process indirectness -- i.e. second and subsequent illocutions in an utterance. Indirectness relies on conversational implicature: there is overwhelming evidence that speakers expect hearers to draw inferences from everything that is uttered -- just as they do from visual and other data perceived and conceived of -- no matter how "direct". It follows that Hearer will begin the inferential process immediately on being presented with the locution. Under the cooperative principle, there is a convention that Speaker has some purpose for choosing to utter U_i in C_i instead of maintaining silence or making some other utterance U_x. Hearer tries to guess this purpose in the course of figuring out the illocutionary point of U_i, and in doing so will consider U_i's relevance to the co-text and setting of the utterance in the light of beliefs about normal behaviour in C_i, beliefs about the speaker of U_i, and the presumed common ground.

Assumption. The INFERENTIAL THEORY of speech acts presents an abstract model of each step necessary in Hearer's reasoning out of Speaker's illocutionary point(s) in making the utterance.

The process of inference is modelled by an inference schema developed out of proposals originally made by Searle 1975b, subsequently refined in the 'speech acts schema' described by Bach and Harnish 1979, and in Allan 1986. There is an assumption that both Speaker and Hearer are normal human beings -- i.e. neither is a genius, a clairvoyant, nor a fool; both know the language and how to use it; and they have the common ground that one can reasonably attribute to such persons in the particular context of utterance. The first step in the process is that Hearer recognizes that Speaker has uttered U and presumably intends to communicate with it; this is recognition of the utterance act. The schema proceeds through the hierarchy of acts (§3) recognizing the locution, the reference, the primary illocution and all subsequent illocutions until the illocutionary point of U has been discovered. To determine the illocutionary point from the primary locution, Hearer invokes the reasonableness condition and seeks some reason for Speaker's primary illocution in the context of utterance. To do so, Hearer checks the semantic properties of the utterance and its constituents in relation to their textual environment, the conversational maxims, and encyclopedic knowledge of many kinds -- including knowledge of the kinds of things that people might be expected to say in such a context and the kinds of reasons that other speakers have had when employing a similar primary illocution. In short, Hearer uses their knowledge of the language and of the use of the language to infer from the primary locution and the circumstances of utterance what the illocutionary point (or points) might be. When Hearer can infer no further illocutions in the utterance the illocutionary point has been reached, and the inference schema for U closes down.⁸

Inference Schema 84 below interprets 84.

The inference schema for 85 shares the same initial five steps with Inference Schema 84, but then it diverges to cope with the different context of utterance.

A serious weakness of speech act theory is the pretence that Speaker's illocutionary intentions can be precisely pinned down. In 85 Speaker tells Hearer the time: are we overestimating Speaker's intention if we assume that s/he thereby implies it is past the time Hearer should have already left for work, hence warning Hearer that s/he is running late and furthermore urging Hearer to hurry? The utterance may merely have been intended to draw Hearer's attention to the time, leaving Hearer to draw whatever conclusion s/he wished. Hearer might be grateful for having the matter brought to his/her attention; get angry with Speaker for interfering; respond by hurrying; respond by suing for divorce because it is the last straw; or responding in innumerable other ways. Speaker discovers only through Hearer's response the perlocutionary effect of the utterance, and thence whether his/her intentions have been realized -- always assuming Speaker has any clear idea what these are!

For a final example, consider 86, which trades on the cooperative requirement that Hearer should have a good reason not to comply with such a request.

86. Why don't you be quiet?

People are not expected to expressly offer reasons for being cooperative, but they are expected to offer reasons for not being cooperative: which is why there is the disjunctive illocutionary point to 86. Notice how the question illocution is carried down through the inference schema to become one of the disjuncts of the illocutionary point of the speech act.

The illocutionary point of any utterance is discovered by an inferential process that attends to Speaker's tone of voice and the context of utterance, knowledge of the language itself and of conversational conventions, and perhaps general encyclopedic knowledge. Speaker knows this and speaks accordingly, aware that Hearer -- as a competent social being and language user -- will recognize the implications of what s/he says. It is not enough to know a language, one must also know how to use it!

To top

9. ON-RECORD AND OFF-RECORD, LITERAL AND NONLITERAL

The study of so-called 'indirect' speech acts has overwhelmingly dealt with requests in various guises. Sadock 1974 identified some exotic species: 'whimperatives' indirectly request (the function of the imperative in Sadock's view) by means of Speaker directly asking a question e.g. Can't you (please) do A? and Do A, will you? (Sadock's analysis is criticized in Allan 1986); using a 'queclarative' Speaker directly questions and indirectly makes an assertion -- Does anyone do A any more? means "Nobody does A any more"; 'requestions' are quiz questions to which Speaker knows the answer, e.g. Columbus discovered America in ...? Blum- Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989:18 identify nine points on an indirectness scale for requests. Their DIRECT STRATEGIES are used when Speaker is dominant:

(i) Imperative: Clean up that mess.
(ii) Performative: I'm asking you to clean up that mess.
(iii) Hedged performative: I would like to ask you to come for a check up.
(iv) Obligation statement: You'll have to move that car.
(v) Want statement: I want you to stop calling me.

What they call CONVENTIONALLY INDIRECT STRATEGIES are Hearer oriented:

(vi) Suggestory formulae: How about cleaning up?.
(vii) Query preparatory (Sadock's whimperatives): Could/Will you clear up the kitchen, please.

Finally, their NON-CONVENTIONALLY INDIRECT STRATEGIES are off-record:

(viii) Strong hint: You've left the kitchen in a dreadful mess.
(ix) Mild hint: I say, it's a bit chilly in here, isn't it? (said when the heating is off and the window open).

The traditional contrast between direct and indirect illocution is muddied by the related contrasts between being ON-RECORD versus OFF-RECORD, and being LITERAL or NONLITERAL. Blum-Kulka et al.'s 'nonconventional indirect' requests could be reclassified "off-record"; the 'direct' and 'conventionally indirect' ones "on- record", because

Definition. An ON-RECORD utterance spells out the message explicitly.

Speaker can be on-record and either more or less indirect; but if Speaker is off-record, s/he is necessarily more indirect. Challenging questions such as 87 superficially seek cessation of or an explanation for the offending act. Indirectly, but nevertheless literally and on-record, Speaker informs Hearer of his/her belief that "the music is very loud."

87. Why play the music so loud?

If Speaker likes loud music, and knows or assumes that Hearer does too, s/he would know why the hifi was playing loud and would not have asked 87 but said something supportive like Great sound! Let's turn up the volume! Therefore, in uttering 87 either (a) Speaker believes that Hearer does not like loud music and is seeking an explanation for this uncharacteristic behaviour or, and more likely, (b) Speaker does not like loud music and is making plain their opinion that "the music is too loud."

For someone who is not very close to Speaker to respond to the invitation in 88 with the bald-on-record refusal No is outright offensive.

88. Do you want come to a movie tonight?

To avoid giving offence we hedge, apologize, prevaricate, and speak off-record, giving reasons for not accepting the invitation or complying with the request. Thus to politely refuse the invitation one says things like 89.

89.

(a) I have to wash my hair.
(b) I'd love to, but my mother's coming to dinner tonight.

Although these might be literally meant on-record statements of Speaker's plans, their illocutionary point is off-record refusal -- a conversational implicature which has to be inferred through additional steps in the inference schema.

A nonliteral utterance such as the sarcastic 90 is an off-record request for Hearer to desist.

90. I'm sure the cat likes you pulling its tail.

What makes it nonliteral is that Speaker does not really mean it as a statement about what the cat likes; in other words, it is the illocution which is nonliteral. However, there is no reason to believe that the literal meaning of 90 is any more direct than an utterance intending the nonliteral meaning of 'bastard' in 91; furthermore, both interpretations are on record.

91. Max is a bastard.

The psycholinguistic evidence (cf. Gernsbacher 1990:89) is that all possible senses of a language expression are activated, and context then suppresses the activation of inappropriate meanings; consequently, there is no reason to believe that the nonliteral meaning of a lexically ambiguous term like bastard takes longer to process than its literal meaning; and therefore no grounds at all for suggesting it is less 'direct'. In contrast to 91, what is nonliteral in 91 is the locution, not the illocution.

Though left to be inferred, all entailments, implicatures, and presuppositions of a proposition within an utterance are communicated; they give rise to indirect illocutions that are often, though not necessarily, deliberately communicated. Suppose Speaker utters 92.

92. Ted's BMW is in the repair shop.

This entails the on-record proposition that "Ted has a BMW" and it is said to be 'indirect' because Speaker does not directly state it. Presumably Speaker literally means "Ted has a BMW" because s/he presupposes its truth (at least, purports to do so). 92 informs Hearer that "Speaker believes Woody has a new job", and Speaker may have made the utterance partly to inform Hearer of this fact.

93. Woody likes his new job.

94 informs Hearer that "Speaker believes that someone phoned", 95 that "Speaker has a married sister" and 96 that "Speaker believes Max has no more than one son and two daughters."

94. Who phoned?
95. My sister's husband is a banker.
96. Max has one son and two daughters.

The public condemnation of the woman at a party who cries out 97 broadcasts on record (a) what Mr Trumpington is (allegedly) doing, (b) a request that he be stopped, (c) Speaker's entailed belief that he will not stop of his own volition.

97. Mrs Trumpington will you please ask your husband to keep his hands off me?!

Off record, Speaker intends not only that Mrs Trumpington condemn her husband for sexual harassment, but that everyone in earshot should do so too, bringing shame to the accused. The phrase keep your hands off is idiomatic and though it is primarily literal, it can also be used with the nonliteral meaning "don't touch".

An on-record utterance spells out the message explicitly; an off-record utterance relies heavily on context and encyclopedic knowledge for its interpretation. Greater indirectness is characteristic of unstated entailments, presuppositions, implicatures, and of nonliteral illocutions. 87 exemplified a literal and on-record challenge Why (must you) do A?; 89 made literal statements with an off-record illocutionary point; 90 a nonliteral statement with the illocutionary point of an off-record request; 91 was an on- record literal assertion containing a nonliteral locution; 92-95 exemplify on-record presuppositions or entailments that are not directly stated; 96 exemplifies an implicature from on-record literally meant constituents; 97 exemplifies both on and off-record literal illocutions, and perhaps a nonliteral on-record one.

To top

10. CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Subject: An application for the position of Post-Doctoral in Linguistics

Sir,
I feel pleasure requesting you for admitting to the Post-Doctoral Course in Linguistics at your esteemed Institution.

(Beginning of a letter from India to the Head of an Australian Linguistics Department, 1996)

All major speech act theorists have ignored cultural diversity, leaving it to empirical studies such as Clyne 1994 or the Cross Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) to investigate (cf. Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989). The latter project investigated and confirmed cultural differences in strategies for requesting and apologizing in German, Hebrew, Danish, Canadian French, Argentinian Spanish, British, American, and Australian English. For instance, both Americans and Hebrews generally prefer to use on-record Hearer-oriented requests rather than off-record ones, but the second preferences differ: Hebrews prefer Speaker dominant direct requests whereas Americans favour the off-record strategy. Interacting with familiars but not intimates, Slavs, Hebrews, and Germans use direct on-record requests mitigated with e.g. modal particles and diminutives, cf. Wierzbicka 1991; English lacks such devices and therefore uses fewer Speaker dominant strategies. At the present time there is much ongoing research into illocutions which touch on politeness concerns, because it is so very important to avoid inadvertently causing offence in social interaction, especially when Hearer is from another culture.

Different cultural conventions and belief systems in different language communities result in different cooperative conventions. For example, there are different linguistic politeness strategies to reflect the culturally validated perceived roles of Speaker and Hearer, and whatever is being spoken of. Social interactive practices, such as societal attitudes to the roles of men and women, vary greatly across cultures; and, as a result, so do the language conventions people use. Acts of complimenting and thanking are more frequent in Anglo communities than in, say, China or Africa. The Japanese and Chinese reportedly find refusing more offensive than Americans do, and so refuse off-record by using proverbs and impersonals. Preconditions on illocutionary acts defined for one language cannot be expected to be universal. Intercultural miscommunication arises from the assumption that the language strategies appropriate to the delivery of the intended meaning in L_a can be used with equal efficacy in L_b. For instance, direct translation of the English 98 into Polish 99 will, according to Wierzbicka 1991:29, be interpreted as a direct question and not an invitation; the counterpart Polish invitation, she says, is 100. However, other Polish speakers strongly disagree, claiming that 99 is a polite invitation, and 100 more of a suggestion -- both consistent with the English translations.

98. Would you like to go the cinema with me?
99.
100. = "Perhaps we would go to the cinema?"

The English translation of 100 would probably misfire as an intended invitation, because the off-record implication in Polish -- "if I asked you?" -- is lost.

The illocutionary point of any utterance is discovered by an inferential process that attends not only to Speaker's locution but to the conversational conventions that govern the use of language in the particular subculture from which Speaker comes. Misunderstanding can easily arise when Hearer applies the norms from some other subculture, cf. Tannen 1990.

To top

11. MORE THAN ONE ILLOCUTION IN AN UTTERANCE

This section deals with the many sentences which contain more than one clause, and in many cases more than one illocution. Clauses that occur within the structure of noun phrases share the primary illocution of their governing clause and contribute nothing to the illocutionary force of the utterance. Examples: the restrictive relative clauses italicized in 101, the NP complement in 102, the adverbial adjunct clauses in 103.

101.

(a) The plums Joe bought got squashed on the journey home.
(b) Here's the anthology in which Edith's poem is published.

102. It's a pity that Eric missed the early train.

103.

(a) When he arrives, call me.
(b) Will you go wherever he does?
(c) He spends his money how he pleases.
(d) It's better than we expected.
(e) Although he was very tired Harry drove me home fearing I'd be mugged.

Some adverbial clauses share but also modify the primary illocution of the main clause; in 104 Speaker is speaking frankly, honestly, or seriously and not not-promising frankly, etc.

104. To be frank (honest, serious) I don't promise to come, but I'll try to do so.

Exclamatory codas like the tags in 105 emphasize the irony but do not otherwise alter the nonliteral illocutionary intention.

105.

(a) So I'm a klutz, am I?!
(b) The checkbook wasn't in your pocket, wasn't it?!

VP complement clauses also share the primary illocution of the main clause, but occasionally contribute to the illocutionary force of the utterance, e.g. 106 can be used to remake a promise.

106. I say I promise to visit tomorrow, you deaf old coot.

Coordinate, conjoined, and appositive clauses of the same type share the primary illocution of the first clause in sequence.

107. I admit responsibility for the financial loss and hereby resign from the board.
108. Come in but don't stay long.

107 has the primary illocution of a declarative and the compound illocutionary points of an admission and a resignation. 108 has the primary illocution of the imperative but compounds an invitation with a prohibition. 109 states first a prohibition and then permission. 110 states information within a denial.

109. I forbid you to go to the pinball parlour; you can go to a movie, though.
110. Suzy, who loves cats, would never torture one.

Alternatively, coordinate, conjoined, and appositive clauses may have different primary and indirect illocutions which will carry through to the compound or complex illocutionary point of the utterance. In 111 the subjunctive protasis identifies a hypothetical world in which Speaker takes out a loan; but the main point of the utterance is the italicized question in the apodosis.

111.

(a) If I were to take out a loan, how much interest will I have to pay?
(b) How much interest will I have to pay if I take out a loan?

112 uses an imperative telling Hearer to smoke, conjoining it with a statement of the consequence of doing so -- together they are intended to function as a warning not to smoke.

112. Smoke, and you'll get cancer.

113 presents an imperative invitation for Hearer to be frank in responding to the request for information. The same effect is achieved when the clause sequence is reversed.

113.

(a) Tell me frankly, what do you think?
(b) What do you think? Be frank.

In 114 the interrogative expressing a yes-no question is located as an appositive clause within the stating of a report.

114. I met Ted -- Did you know he divorced Monica, by the way? -- last night at the club ...

A positive imperative may take a negative interrogative tag and together they mean "Speaker proposes to Hearer that Hearer do A unless Hearer doesn't want to agree to do A"; e.g. 115. There are rise tones on 'Sít' and 'yóu' and fall tones on 'dòwn' and 'wòn't'.

115. Sít dòwn, wòn't yóu?

115 is typically an invitation because it has the Hearer-oriented (fall-)rise pitch on the tag. Compare the instructional imperative with a positive tag that has the Speaker-dominant (rise-)fall tone. (The dieresis on the 'i' of 'Sït' indicates the same relative pitch as the onset to the fall in 'dòwn'; there is a rise-fall tone on 'wîll'.)

116. Sït dòwn, wîll you.

116 means "Speaker proposes to Hearer that Hearer do A and asks that Hearer agree to do A." Hearer can more readily refuse the invitation in 115 than the instruction in 116. Negative imperatives are used only with positive tags; e.g. 117.

117. Dön't get lòst, wíll yòu?

"Speaker proposes to Hearer that Hearer not get lost and asks that Hearer agree to not get lost." The reason we don't hear 118 can be seen from the anomaly of "Speaker proposes to Hearer that Hearer not get lost unless Hearer doesn't want to agree to not get lost" or, more simply, "Don't get lost if you don't want to."

118. *Don't get lost, won't you.

When "Speaker says that F" it implies satisfaction of the precondition that "Speaker believes that F"; if Speaker has any doubts, it is cooperative to express them, as in 119.

119. Jack's in his room, I think.

Or Speaker may venture that F but immediately check with Hearer the truth of F (perhaps to flatter Hearer) by using a tag question of opposite polarity to the declarative main clause:

120.

(a) Jack's in his ròom, ísn't he?
(b) Jack ísn't in his ròom, ís he?

Many clauses exist in English to express Speaker's doubts about satisfaction of the preconditions on an illocutionary act, e.g. 121.

121.

(a) I promise to come if I can.
(b) If I've offended you, I apologize.
(c) Is Jack in his room, do you know?
(d) Can you tell me whether Jack's in today?

Speaker may signal uncertainty that Hearer will believe him/her:

122.

(a) Would you believe that Joe and Edna have separated?
(b) Will you accept that I am genuinely sorry?
(c) Please believe that we have done our best to accommodate you.

Speaker's awareness of the potential violation of the cooperative maxim of quantity is signalled by the clause italicized in 123:

123. Did you know that Max has a new job?

And if Speaker wants to discourse on a topic whose introductory proposition is known to Hearer, s/he will say, e.g. 124:

124. Max hates cats, as you know, but his new girlfriend has sixteen!

Speaker may thank Hearer and/or explicitly seek Hearer's cooperation:

125. I'd be grateful if you could show it to me if you don't mind.

The IFID please (indicating a request) means more or less "do A if it pleases you but don't if not" and thus APPEARS to give Hearer the option of refusing, although Hearer cannot refuse without serious affront to Speaker's face, cf. 126.

126.

(a) Two coffees, please.
(b) Please be advised your account is overdue.

Speaker may excuse potentially impertinent questions with may I ask and impertinent statements with if I may say so. There are rhetorical requests for permission as in 127.

127. May I say how happy I am to be here tonight.

Speaker may try to deflect opprobrium or mitigate a face affront by using the italicized onsets to 128:

128.

(a) I'm afraid I must ask you to leave immediately, sir.
(b) I regret that your application has been unsuccessful.

Alternatively, Speaker is congratulatory in 129.

129. I am delighted to inform you that your application has been successful.

In all such cases, and many additional ones, there is an illocutionary addition to the utterance whose primary function is ease social interaction.

Of course Speaker may cancel an illocution, too, replacing it with another; e.g. 130.

130.

(a) I'm sorry I called you an asshole, asshole.
(b) I advise you, or warn you rather, not to stroke the carpet viper.

In this section we have seen that many utterances contain more than one clause, and some of these will have more than one illocutionary point. In many utterances carrying more than one illocution, one of them will express Speaker's doubts about the preconditions.

To top

12. SPEECH ACTS AND DISCOURSE

Speech act theories have treated illocutionary acts as the product of single utterances based on a single sentence with only one illocutionary point -- thus becoming a pragmatic extension to sentence grammars. In real life, we do not use isolated utterances: each utterance functions as part of a larger intention or plan. As Labov and Fanshel pointed out:

most utterances can be seen as performing several speech acts simultaneously ... Conversation is not a chain of utterances, but rather a matrix of utterances and actions bound together by a web of understandings and reactions ... In conversation, participants use language to interpret to each other the significance of the actual and potential events that surround them and to draw the consequences for their past and future actions. (1977:29f)

Attempts to break out of the sentence-grammar mould were made by Labov and Fanshel 1977 and Edmondson 1981, and then increasingly by researchers into cross-cultural spoken discourse (see Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper 1989). The field of artificial intelligence has taken up speech acts in the context of modeling Speaker's plans and intentions when making the utterance (see Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack 1990). Consider the following interchange in a pharmacy.

As in most interactions, the interlocutors each have an agenda; and to carry out the plan, the illocutions within a discourse are ordered with respect to one another. The effect is to create coherent discourse in which Speaker upholds his or her obligations to Hearer. Future work on speech acts needs to account for the contribution of individual speech acts to a discourse or text; and that leads into conversational and/or discourse analysis.

Very little work has been done on the contribution of the illocutions within utterances to the development of understanding in written texts. Texts, whether spoken or written, display one or more of four perlocutionary functions according to Brewer and Lichtenstein 1982. Social interaction predominates in what Malinowski called phatic communion (social chitchat); informativeness predominates in academic texts; persuasiveness in election speeches; and entertainment in novels. But many texts combine some or all these functions in varying degrees to achieve their communicative purpose. For instance, although an academic text is primarily informative, it also tries to persuade readers to reach a certain point of view; it needs to be entertaining enough to keep the reader's attention; and most academic texts try to get the reader on side through social interactive techniques such as use of authorial we to include the reader. The contribution of the illocutions of individual utterances to the understanding of topics and episodes (macrostructures) within texts is sorely in need of study.

To top

13. SUMMARY

• Key words and phrases: assertives, authoritatives, A presupposes B, behabitives, belief predicate, commissives, constative, conventional indirect strategies for requests, declarations, declaratives, description (component of the definition of an illocution), direct illocution, directives, effectives, executive condition, exercitives, expositives, expressives, factive predicate, felicity condition, form (component of the definition of an illocution), fulfillment condition, Hearer oriented, illocution, illocution, illocutionary act, illocutionary force, illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), illocutionary intention (component of the definition of an illocution), illocutionary point, illocutionary types, indeterminacy, indirect illocutions, interrogatives, invitationals, literal, locution, locutionary act, maxim of quality, Moore's paradox, negation (ordinary), nonconventionally indirect strategies for requests, nonliteral, off-record, on-record, operatives, performative clause, performative verb, performatives, perlocution, perlocutionary act, perlocutionary effect, precondition (component of the definition of an illocution), preparatory condition, presupposition, presuppositional plugs, primary illocution, radical negation, referring (act of), sincerity condition, Speaker dominant, statements, trivalence, truth-value gap, utterance act, verdictives.

• The purpose of this paper was to introduce some fundamental assumptions about speech acts, their constitution and classification, the notion of a performative, and the place of felicity conditions. Discussion of the preconditions on a speech act gave rise to a study of presupposition. In the second half of the paper we examined a method for determining the relation between the form of words uttered and the message or messages conveyed.

• A speech act is quintessentially pragmatic because it is created when Speaker makes an utterance U to Hearer in context C and must be interpreted as an aspect of social interaction.

• With very few exceptions, the purpose of speaking or writing is to cause an effect on the audience.

• An utterance act occurs when Speaker makes an utterance U (in whatever medium) to Hearer in context C. No knowledge of the particular language used is required to recognize an utterance act.

• Recognizing the locution means recognizing that < p ,e>, i.e. e spoken with prosody p , means "m" -- its sense (or better, its intension). Thus, a locution is produced and then recognized by someone who has knowledge of the grammar, lexicon, semantics, and phonology of the language used.

• In an act of referring, Speaker uses the intensions of language expressions (e and its constituents) to identify things in the world s/he is speaking of.

• The most significant act in the hierarchy of speaking is the illocutionary act. An utterance will normally have more than one illocutionary force.

• The perlocutionary effect of U is the consequence of Hearer recognizing (what s/he takes to be) the locution and illocutionary point of U.

• Most of what human beings say is aimed towards the success of perlocutionary acts, but because perlocutionary effects are behavioural and/or cognitive and/or emotional responses they are not linguistic objects. What linguists can properly look at, however, are the intentions of speakers to bring about certain perlocutionary effects; these so-called perlocutionary or illocutionary intentions appear in definitions of speech acts.

• In an explicit performative clause the illocutionary point is spelled out in the semantics of the verb.

• Explicit performative clauses must contain a verb that names the illocutionary point of the utterance; they must be in the present tense; in English they are typically in the simple aspect, but may be progressive; a performative clause must be realis and denote the actualization of the illocutionary act; Speaker must be agent for whoever takes responsibility for enforcing the illocutionary point of the utterance. An explicit performative clause may be negative; it may be emphatic; and it may contain the adverb hereby meaning "in uttering this performative".

• Austin's felicity conditions were (i) a preparatory condition (we abbreviated this to 'precondition') to establish whether or not the circumstances of the speech act and the participants in it are appropriate to its being performed successfully; (ii) an executive condition to determine whether or not the speech act has been properly executed; (iii) a sincerity condition -- which has a similar function to the cooperative maxim of quality; and (iv) a fulfillment condition determined by the perlocutionary effect of the speech act. If all the relevant felicity conditions were satisfied for a given illocutionary act, Austin described it as 'happy' or 'felicitous'.

• We concluded that the only one of Austin's original felicity conditions which remains obligatory in the definitions of all illocutions is the precondition; this provides the grounds for motivating Speaker to make the utterance and grounds from which Hearer will evaluate the illocutionary act expressed in the utterance. An executive condition included among the preconditions is needed for declarations. Fulfillment conditions remain important to nonlinguists concerned with perlocutionary effects of utterances.

• Just one sincerity condition is needed for all illocutions: In uttering U, Speaker knows or believes (or believes s/he knows) that all clauses of the precondition hold. This will preserve the maxim of quality.

• Austin 1975 identified five classes of speech acts, Vendler 1972 seven, Searle 1979 five, Bach and Harnish 1979 six (dividing Searle's declarations), and Allan 1994b,c four. See Fig.2 for a comparison.

• We reviewed six definitions of assertives and although most were represented in terms of the components 'description', 'precondition', 'illocutionary intention', some included a 'sincerity condition' which we dismissed as part of the general machinery of the cooperative principle. Searle used 'propositional content' which does not quite match the 'description' in the work of other scholars. After discussion, we concluded that the obligatory components of the definitions of speech acts are (i) the 'description', (ii) the 'precondition', and (iii) Speaker's 'illocutionary intention'.

• We identified the preconditions on illocutions with presuppositions. The preconditions identify what ought to be presupposed in a felicitous use of the illocution and they are obligatory in the definition of illocutions.

• It is said that A presupposes B, A presupposes B, just in case A entails B and not-A entails B. But this semantic definition has unwanted logical consequences.

• To recognize that presuppositions are in fact preconditions on illocutions explains their pragmatic characteristics, in particular that they are defeasible.

• Presuppositions are denied through 'radical negation' which differs from regular negation only because a presupposition is negated. However, no language has a distinct word or other morphological form for negating presuppositions.

• Violation of preconditions leads to 'Moore's paradox' or 'presupposition failure' and Speaker is condemned for being ignorant, deluded, insane, or maliciously attempting to mislead Hearer.

• Preconditions are subject to the cooperative maxim of quality and therefore presupposition is perhaps a species of conversational implicature. This explains the defeasibility of presupposition.

• We demonstrated a step-by-step analysis of an utterance proceeding from the utterance act, through the locution, the act of referring, the primary illocution and thence to the illocutionary point.

• We identified six primary illocutions for English determined from mood or clause-type: declarative, expressive, imperative, (declarative) interrogative, interrogative subjunctive, and subjunctive. Most languages have about this number of primary illocutions plus or minus 1 or 2.

• With primary illocutions tied to clause-types, we added 'form' to the components already identifed for the definitions of illocutions, 'description', 'precondition', 'illocutionary intention'.

• The identification of primary illocution with mood renders explicit performatives 'indirect' illocutions. Every performative has the primary illocution of a declarative.

• The illocutionary point of any utterance is discovered by an inferential process that attends to Speaker's prosody, tone of voice, the context of utterance, knowledge of the language itself and of conversational conventions, and perhaps general encyclopedic knowledge. Speaker knows this and speaks accordingly, aware that Hearer -- as a competent social being and language user -- will recognize the implications of what s/he says. It is not enough to know a language, one must also have communicative competence (Hymes 1972).

• Often, more than one illocutionary point can reasonably be inferred, and it is uncertain exactly what the illocutionary point of an utterance is.

• We found that Blum-Kulka et al.'s category of 'direct strategies' for requests are used when Speaker is dominant; their 'conventionally indirect strategies' when the utterance is Hearer oriented; and their 'nonconventionally indirect strategies' are simply off-record utterances. An on-record utterance spells out the message explicitly, so an off-record one places particularly heavy reliance on context and encyclopedic knowledge to calculate the implicatures. Off-record illocutions are necessarily 'indirect'.

• We concluded that illocutions which are on-record and apparently literally meant are 'indirect' if they are presupposed, entailed (but not explicit) or implicated in the utterance. Non-literal illocutions are also 'indirect'.

• Clauses that occur within the structure of noun phrases share the primary illocution of their governing clause and contribute nothing to the illocutionary force of the utterance. Some adverbial clauses share but also modify the primary illocution of the main clause. VP complement clauses share the primary illocution of the main clause, but occasionally contribute to the illocutionary force of the utterance. Coordinate, conjoined, and appositive clauses of the same type share the primary illocution of the first clause in sequence. Alternatively, coordinate, conjoined, and appositive clauses may have different primary and indirect illocutions which will carry through to the compound or complex illocutionary point of the utterance.

• Many clauses exist in English and other languages to express Speaker's doubts about satisfaction of the preconditions on an illocutionary act.

• Speech act theories have treated illocutionary acts as the product of single utterances based on a single sentence with only one illocutionary point -- thus becoming a pragmatic extension to sentence grammars. In real life, we do not use isolated utterances: an utterance functions as part of a larger intention or plan. In most interactions, the interlocutors each have an agenda; and to carry out the plan, the illocutions within a discourse are ordered with respect to one another. The contribution of the illocutions of individual utterances to the understanding of topics and episodes is not well documented.

To top

Allan, Keith. 1986. Linguistic Meaning (Vols 1 and 2). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Allan, Keith. 1994a. Felicity conditions on speech acts. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ron Asher. Vol.3, pp.1210- 13. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, Keith. 1994b. Indirect speech acts (and off-record utterances). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ron Asher. Vol.3, pp.1653- 56. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, Keith. 1994c. Performative clauses. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ron Asher. Vol.6, pp.3001- 3. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, Keith. 1994d. Speech act classification and definition. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ron Asher. Vol.8, pp.4124- 27. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, Keith. 1994e. Speech act theory -- An overview. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ron Asher. Vol.8, pp.4127- 38. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Allan, Keith. 1994f. Speech act hierarchy, Locutions, illocutions and perlocutions. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Ron Asher. Vol.8, pp.4141-42. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Aristotle. 1938. The Categories and On Interpretation (tr. by Harold P. Cooke). Loeb Classical Library. London: Heineman.

Austin, John L. 1975 [1962]. How To Do Things With Words. (2nd edn ed. by J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Austin, John L. 1963. Performative-Constative. Philosophy and Ordinary Language ed. by Charles E. Caton, 22-54. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Reprinted in The Philosophy of Language ed. by John Searle, 1971:1-12. London: Oxford University Press.

Bach, Kent. 1975. Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies 28:229-36. Reprinted slightly amended in Bach and Harnish 1979:203-08.

Bach, Kent and Robert M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Ballmer, Thomas T. and Waltraud Brennenstuhl. 1981. Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Blum-Kulka Shoshana, J. House, and Gabriele Kasper. 1989. Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: an introductory overview. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies, ed. by Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper, pp.1-34. Norwood NJ: Ablex.

Boër, Steven and William Lycan. 1976. The Myth of Semantic Presupposition. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.

Brewer, William F. and Edward H. Lichtenstein. 1982. Stories are to entertain: a structural-affect theory of stories. Journal of Pragmatics 6:473- 86.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Bybee, Joan L. and Suzanne Fleischman (eds). 1995b. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Clark, Herbert H. and Thomas B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58:332-73.

Clyne, Michael. 1994. Intercultural Communication at Work: Cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The Semantics of Modal Auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.

Cohen, L. Jonathon. 1964. Do illocutionary forces exist? Philosophical Quarterly XIV No.55:118-37.

Cohen, Philip R., Jerry Morgan, and Martha E. Pollack (eds). 1990. Intentions in Communication. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Cole, Peter (ed.). 1981. Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.

Cole, Peter and Jerry L. Morgan (eds). 1975. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Davidson, Donald and Gilbert Harman (eds). 1972. Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Declerck, Renaat. 1991. Tense in English: its structure and use in discourse. London: Routledge.

Diogenes Laertius. 1925. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (Vol.2) (tr. by Hicks R D). Loeb Classical Library. London: Heinemann.

Edmondson, Willis. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. New York: Longman.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1971. Verbs of judging. In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds), pp.273-89.

Fillmore, Charles J. and Terence D. Langendoen (eds). 1971. Studies in Linguistic Semantics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100, 1892:25-50. English version: On sense and reference. Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, ed. by Peter Geach and Max Black, 56-78. Oxford: Blackwell.

Gamut, L.T.F. 1991. Language Logic and Meaning. Vol.1 Introduction to Logic. Vol.2 Intensional Logic and Logical Grammar. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.

Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Speech act assignment. In Joshi, Webber, Sag (eds), pp.64-83.

Geach, Peter T. 1968. Reference and Generality. (Emended edn). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Grice, H. Paul. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66:377-88. Reprinted in Rosenberg and Travis (eds) 1971:436-44, and Steinberg and Jakobovits (eds) 1971:53-59. Reprinted in Grice 1986.

Grice, H. Paul. 1968. Utterer's meaning, sentence meaning, and word-meaning. Foundations of Language 4:225-42. Reprinted in Grice 1986.

Grice, H. Paul. 1969. Utterer's meaning and intentions. Philosophical Review 78:147-77. Reprinted in Grice 1986.

Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, pp.41-58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in Grice 1986.

Grice, H. Paul. 1986. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Harder, Peter. 1996. Functional Semantics: A Theory of Meaning, Structure and Tense in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hare, Richard M. 1971. Practical Inferences. London: Macmillan.

Heinämäki, Orvokki. 1972. Before. Papers from the 8th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. by Paul M. Peranteau et al., pp.139-51.

Hepworth, James and Gregory McNamee (eds). 1989, Resist Much, Obey Little: Some notes on Edward Abbey. Tucson: Harbinger House.

Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Householder, Fred W. (ed.). 1981. The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. The English perfect as a secondary past tense. The Verb in Contemporary English: theory and Description, ed. by Bas Aarts and Charles F. Meyer, pp.102-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huddleston, Rodney and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 1997. The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, Dell. 1972. On communicative competence. In Pride and Holmes (eds), pp.269-93.

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Joshi, Aravind K., Bonnie L. Webber, and Ivan A. Sag (eds). 1981. Elements of Discourse Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Karttunen, Lauri. 1973. Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 4:169-93.

Karttunen, Lauri and Stanley F. Peters. 1979. Conventional implicature. Syntax and Semantics 11: Presupposition, ed. by Choon-Kyu Oh and David A. Dinneen, 1-56. New York: Academic Press.

Katz, Jerrold J. 1973. On defining 'Presupposition'. Linguistic Inquiry 4:256-60.

Katz, Jerrold J. 1977. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Thomas Crowell. Reprinted 1980. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Labov, William and David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.

Lakoff, George. 1971. The role of deduction in grammar. In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds), pp.63-70.

Lancelot, Claude. 1644. Nouvelle Méthode Pour Comprendre Facilement et en Peu de Temps, la Langue Latine. Paris

Lane, A. 1700. A Key to the Art of Letters. London. Facsimile, 1969. Menston: Scolar Press.

Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, David. 1970. General semantics. Synthese 22:18-67. Reprinted in Davidson and Harman 1972:169-218.

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics (2 Volumes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1949. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In Ogden and Richards (eds) 1949:296-336.

Matthews, Richard. 1991. Words and Worlds: on the Linguistics of Modality. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Moore, George E. 1952. A reply to my critics. The Philosophy of G.E. Moore, ed. by Paul A. Schilpp, pp.533-687. New York: Tudor Publ. Corp. (2nd edn).

Ogden, Charles K. and Ivor A. Richards. 1949. The Meaning of Meaning. (10th edn) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Palmer, Frank R. 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pride, John B. and Janet Holmes (eds). 1972. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Quine, Willard V.O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Recanati, François. 1987. Meaning and Force: The Pragmatics of Performative Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ryle, Gilbert. 1953. Ordinary language. Philosophical Review 62:167-86. Reprinted in Philosophy and Ordinary Language ed. by Charles E. Caton, 1963:108-127. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sadock, Jerrold M. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

Sadock, Jerry M. and Arnold Zwicky. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol.I Clause Structure, ed by Timothy Shopen, pp.155-96. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

Sanctius, F. 1585. Minerva, seu de Causis Lingue. Madrid.

Schreiber, Peter A. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3:321-47.

Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. London: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, John R. 1975a. A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Gunderson (ed.) pp.344-69. Reprinted in Language in Society 5, 1976:1-23 and Searle 1979.

Searle, John R. 1975b. Indirect speech acts. In Cole and Morgan (eds) 1975:59-82. Reprinted in Searle 1979.

Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seuren, Peter A.M. 1985. Discourse Semantics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Shakespeare, William. 1951. The Complete Works ed. by Peter Alexander. London and Glasgow: Collins.

Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.

Strawson, Peter F. 1950. On referring. Mind 59:320-44. Reprinted in Rosenberg and Travis (eds) 1971:175-95.

Tannen, Deborah. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow/Milsons Point N.S.W.: Random House

Vendler, Zeno. 1972. Res Cogitans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Whitney, William D. 1888. A Compendious German Grammar. (6th edn) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1987. English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Sydney: Academic Press.

Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

1. Entered into the references section as Austin 1975. Page references are all to the second edn of 1975. Go back

2. Symbols p and m are read pi and mu (anglicized to be homophonous with pie and mew). Different scholars offer slightly different definitions of the locutionary act (e.g. Austin 1962, Searle 1969, Bach and Harnish 1977, Recanati 1987). Go back

3. Tense is a system of grammatical morphemes that locate situations relative to a deictic centre, t_d, where 't' is the instant of time. Absolute tense is defined relative to the moment of utterance, t₀, such that t_d=t₀. Ignoring many difficulties, present is coincident with t₀, past precedes t₀, future follows t₀. For relative tense, such as the English perfect and pluperfect, the deictic centre is not t₀. See Comrie 1985, Declerck 1991, Huddleston 1995, Harder 1996 Part 3, Huddleston and Pullum 1997. Go back

4. 'Epistemic' from a Greek word meaning "knowledge" -- derived by inference from the root meaning. On modals see Lyons 1977, Coates 1983, Palmer 1986, Matthews 1991, Bybee, Perkins and Pagliuca 1994, Bybee and Fleischman (eds) 1995. Go back

5. Actually Strawson 1950 used the term 'imply' and not 'presuppose' as he did later. Go back

6. Throughout this paper F symbolizes a simple proposition p or its negative counterpart not-p. If you don't already know, 'F' is phi. Go back

7. W is read omega. Go back

8. Although the schema offers a rational model for Hearer's understanding of the utterance, it is misleading because it pretends that each step is completed before the next is begun. This cannot be true because in reality we interpret parts of utterances as they are presented to us. Go back

   ---