Locutions, Illocutions, Perlocutions -- & _Relevance_.
Comments on 'Speech acts and Relevance theory'.
From LINGUIST List: Vol-13-920. Apr 2 2002. ISSN: 1068-4875.
Home Page: http://linguistlist.org/
REVIEW:
D Vanderveken/S Kubo, eds (2001) Essays in Speech Act Theory. John
Benjamins, vi+324pp, paperback ISBN 90-272-5094-4. Pragmatics and Beyond
New Series 77. (Reviwed by A. Reboul).
Contents:
Part I: General Theory: Vanderveken, Leclerc, Searle, De Sousa Melo.
Part II, Discourse and interlocution: Trognon, Davis, Yamada, Moulin/Rousseau.
Part III, Speech Acts in Linguistics Kubo, Yamanashi, Moeschler,
Dominicy/Franken.
"Trognon misuses Sperber & Wilson's notion of "mutual manifestness" (1995),
saying that the addressee's reaction makes his interpretation of the
initial speaker's act "mutually obvious"".
"Moeschler points out that [...] conversational or discourse analysis
should be abandoned and a radical pragmatic interpretation, in the
theoretical framework of Relevance Theory should be adopted."
"[Dominicy's and Franken's essay, 'Speech act & relevance theory',
compares] Relevance Theory approach to speech acts (Sperber & Wilson 1995)
with illocutionary logic."
"[Dominicy and Franken's essay] is devoted to a comparison of the treatment
of a few examples in both Speech Act Theory & Relevance Theory. The paper
is not always very clear. It deals with one of Sperber & Wilson's
contentions about the typology of speech acts, that is, that though it may
be a legitimate theoretical aim, it is not used by speakers in as much as
not all so-called illocutionary acts need to be recognised as belonging to
such and such a type to be
interpreted. Indeed, Sperber and Wilson (1995) distinguish 3 classes of
speech acts:
* basic (linguistic) speech
acts of three types, saying that, telling to and asking wh,
which should be recognised as such;
* institutional acts
(baptism, declaration of wars, etc.) which must be
recognized as such but are non linguistic; and,
* finally, a
third class of acts which may but need not be recognized as
such to be understood."
"It is the third class that Dominicy and Franken are interested in and they
choose a few examples over which they compare Relevance-based accounts and
Speech Acts-based accounts."
"Those examples are imperatives used in
-- advice,
-- permission
-- good wishes,
-- audienceless cases, etc.
"To take the first case, the example runs:
(1) A: Excuse me, I want to get to the station.
B: Take a number 3 bus.
"According to Sperber & Wilson, B communicates that taking a 3 bus is
desirable from B's point of view but not especially
from A's own. Dominicy and Franken deny that this is so."
"Dominicy/Franken then move on to permission, where much the same comment
applies."
"The mixture of speech acts theory and relevance makes their discussion
difficult to follow."
"They then discuss several notions of desirability, aiming to distinguish
-- "desirable for"
-- "desirable to" and
-- "desirable from the point of view of".
"Apparently both Relevance and Speech act theory are wanting regarding that
distinction."
"They conclude this section by claiming that the speaker of a permission
expressed through an imperative presents the state of affairs as
desirable both to her hearer and to herself.
"This is clearly false. If I say to my fifteen year old son who is
pestering me to buy him a motorcycle"
(2) OK, go ahead, buy a motor cycle and kill yourself but just leave me alone.
"I do give him permission to bring about a state of affairs which he deems
to be desirable to and for himself (being the owner of a motorcycle) but
which I deem to be undesirable for me (I will be anxious about his
security)."
"By the way, the very wording of the permission in their example"
(3) A: Can I open the window?
B: Oh, open it, then",
"seems to sustain such a view (it certainly does not present B as overjoyed
about
the opening of the window, which is weird if it is a desirable state of
affairs for her)."
"They then go on to discuss, more convincingly I think, other examples
where echoic uses may or may not be involved and propose an analysis of
some such imperatives as conditional
illocutionary acts, which seems to me quite interesting. Their general
conclusion is that speech act theory is better regarding illocutionary acts
though relevance is superior regarding echoic and ironic use."
"There are two errors regarding Relevance which it may be useful to point
out."
* "On page 263, it is said that in Relevance, "cooperation only takes place
when it is needed to produce relevance", which seems highly doubtful.
* "On page 264, it is said that in Relevance, the three basic types of
speech acts are assumed "by default". Given that one of the major tenets of
Relevance Theory is a strong rejection of default assumptions, this, again,
seems doubtful."
References:
Austin, JL. 1962. How to Do Things with Words, Oxford,
Clarendon Press.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson, (1995) Relevance:
Communication and Cognition, Oxford, Basil Blackwell. 2nd
edition."
==
J L Speranza, Esq
Country Town
St Michael's Hall Suite 5/8
Calle 58, No 611 Calle Arenales 2021
La Plata CP 1900 Recoleta CP 1124
Tel 00541148241050 Tel 00542214257817
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina
Telefax 00542214259205
http://www.netverk.com.ar/~jls/
jls@netverk.com.ar
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 08 2002 - 01:47:23 GMT