The implication of the question is unambiguous: Jesus Christ between the two robbers. The critic made up a complicated indirect speech act: he disguised an evaluative representative: “You are two scoundrels, of that I am sure” as a question “And where is the Savior?”
Anecdotes often play with a wrong understanding of the speaker’s illocutionary point by the hearer, for example:
Someone knocks at the window of a peasant’s house at 3 a.m.:
- Hey, you need any firewood?
- No, go away, I am sleeping.
In the morning, the peasant saw that all the firewood disappeared from his shed.
In this funny story the peasant took the question for an offer, and his interlocutor (hardly by mistake) took the refusal as the answer.
7. INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS AS A YARDSTICK OF COMMUNICATIVE MATURITY AND MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING
“Нам не дано предугадать, как слово
наше отзовется”.
Ф.Тютчев
Understanding of indirect speech acts is not a man’s inborn ability. Younger children whose communicational skills are not yet well developed perceive only one illocutionary force of a speech act, the one deducible from the syntactic form of an utterance.For instance, once my four-year-old son was carrying home a paintbrush I just bought for him. On our way home he often dropped it. I said: “You let your brush fall a hundred times!” meaning a directive: “Be more careful!” The boy, however, took my words literally and replied: “Of course not, mom. I dropped it only six times!”
Here is another example of communicational immaturity. A boy of seven phones to his mother’s office:
- I’d like to speak to Mrs. Jones, please.
- She is out. Please call back in a few minutes.
- OK.
The boy reacted to the utterance “Please call back in a few minutes” as to a request while the communicative situation required answering “Thank you” (for advice) instead of “OK”.
If the hearer does not recognize the speaker’s communicative intentions, a communicative failure will follow. For example, asking, “Where is the department store?” one may hear: “The department store is closed” in a situation when one needs the department store as an orienting point.
Quite often a question is understood as a reproach, e.g.
- Why didn’t you invite him?
- Invite him yourself if you want to.
- I do not want to invite him. I am just asking.
Surprise can be taken for distrust:
- Does it really cost that much?
- Don’t you believe me?
Sociolinguistic research shows that everywhere in the civilized world women tend to use more indirect speech acts than men. Educated people, regardless of their sex, prefer indirect speech acts to direct ones. Correct understanding of indirect speech acts by an adult is an index of his or her sanity [9,90].
On balance, the question How to do things with words?cannot be answered easily and unambiguously: just build your utterance in accordance with certain rules or use one of the “moulds”, and you will avoid a communication failure.
A chasm of incomplete understanding always separates communicants, even most intimate ones, and indirect speech acts often make it deeper. Yet, only words can bridge the chasm conducting the thought from one shore to the other. Every time the bridge is to be built from scratch, and choosing linguistic means, the interactants must take into account the distance, the “weather” conditions, the previous mistakes, both their own and other people’s, and “the weight” of the thought to be conveyed. Finally, the thought is worded and set off, but we can only guess what awaits it on the other shore. We are helpless there, and our thought is now in the hearer’s power.
CONCLUSIONS
Correspondence between the syntactic form of an utterance and its pragmatic function is not always 1:1. The same syntactic form can express various communicative intentions. On the other hand, to express a communicative intention we can use a variety of linguistic means. Therefore, in speech there are many constructions used to express not the meaning fixed by the system of language, but a secondary meaning that is conventional or appears in a particular context. Speech acts made up by means of such constructions are indirect. In indirect speech acts, the speaker conveys the non-literal as well as the literal meaning, and an apparently simple utterance may, in its implications, count for much more.Hence, it is very important to study not only the structure of a grammatical or lexical unit and its meaning in the system of language, but also the pragmatic context shaping its functioning in communication.
A number of theories try to explain why we generate indirect speech acts and how we discover them in each other’s speech. The inference theory brought forward by John Searle claims that we first perceive the literal meaning of the utterance and find some indication that the literal meaning is inadequate. Having done that, we derive the relevant indirect force from the literal meaning and context.
Another line of explanation developed by Jerrold Sadock is that indirect speech acts are expressions based on an idiomatic meaning added to their literal meaning.
Jerry Morgan writes about two types of convention in indirect speech acts: conventions of language and conventions of usage. Conventions of usage express what Morgan calls "short-circuited implicatures": implicatures that once were motivated by explicit reasoning but which now do not have to be calculated explicitly anymore.
According to the relevance theory developed by Sperber and Wilson, the process of interpretation of direct speech acts does not at all differ from the process of interpretation of indirect speech acts. Furthermore, it is literal utterances that are often marked and sound less natural than utterances with indirect meaning.
Speech act theories have treated illocutionary acts as the products of single utterances based on single sentences with only one illocutionary point - thus becoming a pragmatic extension to sentence grammars. The contribution of the illocutions of individual utterances to the understanding of topics and episodes is not yet well documented.
Pragmatic research reveals that the main types of indirect speech acts are found in all natural languages. Yet, some indirect speech acts are specific for a group of languages or even for a particular language. Conventional indirect speech acts must always be taken into account when learning a foreign language. They often make the communicative center of utterances and sound much more natural than direct speech acts.
Indirect speech acts are widely used in everyday speech, in fiction, and in publicistic works because they influence the quality of argumentation and amplify the impact upon the hearer’s emotions. Indirect speech acts are the driving force of advertisements whose illocutionary point is always a directive: "Buy it now!"
It has been found that indirect expressives, directives and representatives compose the most numerous group of indirect speech acts in modern English discourse.
The use of indirect speech acts in discourse has been studied by a number of linguists, cognitive scientists, and philosophers, including Searle [18], [19], [43], [44], [45]; Grice [4], [30]; Ballmer [23]; Kreckel [34]; Clark [27]; Partridge [40], Cohen [28], Pocheptsov [13], Romanov [16]. Yet, the research of indirect speech acts is still far from being complete.
Робота присвячена непрямим мовленнєвим актам у сучасному англійському дискурсі. Непрямі мовленнєві акти – це мовленнєві дії, що здійснюються за допомогою висловлювань, які мають дві іллокутивні сили, тобто мовець має на увазі одночасно і пряме значення висловлювання, і щось більше. Типові приклади непрямих мовленнєвих актів – це ввічливі прохання у вигляді запитань або твердження у вигляді запитань (риторичні питання). Непрямі мовленнєві акти привутні в усіх мовах, проте в кожній мові вони мають свої особливості.
Розділи 1 - 4 є теоретичними. У них розкривається сутність непрямих мовленнєвих актів, розглядаються причини їхньої широкої поширеності в мовленні на прикладі англійського дискурса, аналізуються існуючі теорії, що пояснюють механізм розуміння співрозмовниками непрямих мовленнєвих актів, з'ясовується внесок іллокутивної сили окремих висловлювань у процес розуміння усього дискурса.
Розділи 5 - 7 мають практичний характер. У них порівнюються конвенціональні непрямі мовленнєві акти англійської й української мов, що використовуються в типових ситуаціях спілкування; наводяться приклади непрямих мовленнєвих актів в творах сучасних британських і американських авторів, газетах, рекламних роликах; доводиться, що розуміння людиною непрямих мовленнєвих актів є мірилом його комунікативної зрілості. Особливо підкреслюється, що оскільки непрямі мовленнєві акти грають істотну роль у мовному впливі на співрозмовника, в етиці, у повсякденному спілкуванні і носять конкретномовний характер, їх необхідно враховувати при вивченні іноземних мов.
Ключові слова: непрямий мовленнєвий акт, теорія мовленнєвих актів, текст, дискурс, локуція, іллокуція, перлокуція, комунікативний намір, принцип кооперації, принцип увічливості, іллокутивна сила, мовленнєва поведінка, комунікація, прагматика, контекст.
LITERATURE
1. Богданов В.В. Речевое общение: прагматические и семантические аспекты.-Л.: Изд-во ЛГУ,1990. - 88 с.
2.Вежбицка А. Речевые акты // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вип. 16. - М.: Прогресс, 1985. – С. 255-276.
3.Голденков М. Осторожно Hot dog. Современный активный English. - М.: ЧеРо,1999. – 267 с.
4.Грайс Г.П. Логика и речевое общение // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вип. 16. - М.: Прогресс, 1985. – С. 14-76.
5.Деметрий. О стиле // Античные риторики. - М.:Изд-во МГУ им.М.В.Ломоносова,1978. - С.235-285.
6.Еремеев Я.Н. Директивные высказывания с точки зрения диалогического подхода// Теоретическая и прикладная лингвистика. Вип. 2. – Воронеж: видавничий центр ВГТУ, 2000.- с.109-126.
7. Клюев Е.В. Речевая коммуникация. М.: ПРИОР, 1998. – 175 с.
8. Конрад Р. Вопросительные предложения как косвенные речевые акты //
Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вип. 16. М.: Прогресс, 1985. С. 349-384.
9. Мартынюк А.П. О реализации принципа вежливости в речи женщин и мужчин // Вестник Харьковского университета. Вып.339. Человек и речевая деятельность. - Харьков,1989. - С.89-92.
10. Остин Дж. Слово как действие // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вип. 17. - М.: Прогресс, 1986. – С.38-94.
11. Петренко В.Ф. Проблемы эффективности речевого воздействия в аспекте психолингвистики // Оптимизация речевого воздействия. - М.:Наука, 1990. – С.18-31.
12. Петров С.С. Сложноподчиненные предложения с косвенным вопросом в современном английском языке // Исследования по германской филологии. – Кишинев: Мысль, 1975. – С.33-38.
13. Почепцов О.Г. Основы прагматического описания предложения. - Киев: Вища школа,1986. - 116 с.
14.Пушкин А.А. Способ организации дискурса и типология языковых личностей // Язык, дискурс и личность: Сб.науч.тр. - Тверь: Изд-во Твер.ун-та,1990. - С.50-60.
15. Рестан П. Синтаксис вопросительного предложения.- М.: Высшая школа, 1972. – 183 с.
16. Романов А.А. Системный анализ регулятивных средств диалогического общения. - М.:Инcтитут языкознания АН СССР,1988. - 183 с.
17. Руднев В. Словарь культуры ХХ века. – http://www.lib.ru/culture/RUDNEW/slowar. txt
18. Серль Дж. Р. Косвенные речевые акты // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике. Вип. 17. - М.: Прогресс, 1986. – С. 195-283.
19. Серль Дж. Р. Классификация иллокутивных актов // Новое в зарубежной лингвистике: Вип. 17. Теория речевых актов. - М.: Прогресс, 1986. – С. 170 – 195.
20. Allan K. Linguistic Meaning. - Vol.1. - London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,1986. - 452 p.
21. Austin J.L. How to Do Things with Words. - Oxford: Oxford University Press,1962. – 167 p.
22. Bach K., Harnish R.Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. - Cambridge: MIT Press, 1979. – 217 p.
23. Ballmer T., Brennenstuhl W. Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. - Berlin: Springer,1981. - 274 p.
24. Blum-Kulka Sh., Hause J., Kasper G. Investigating Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:An Introductory Overview // Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex,1989. - P.1-34.
25. Bogardus E.S. Social Distance and its Practical Implications // Journal of Sociology and Social Research 22. - 1988. - P.462-476.
26. Brown P., Levinson S. Politeness:Some Universals in Language Usage. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1987. - 345p.
27. Clark H. Arenas of language use. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. – 159 p.
28. Cohen G. Why is it Difficult to Put Names to Faces? // British Journal of Psychology, N 81. - 1990. - P.287-297.
29. Edmondson W.J. On Saying You are Sorry // Conversational Routine. - The Hague: Mouton,1981. - P. 273-288.
30. Grice P. Presupposition and conversational implicature. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 183-98. New York: Academic Press, 1981. – 217 p.
31. House J., Kasper G. Politeness Markers in English and German // Conversational Routine. F.Coulmas (Ed.). - The Hague: Mouton,1981. - P.157-186.
32. Hymes D. Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life // Directions in Sociolinguistics: the Ethnography of Communication. - New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1972. - P.35-71.
33. Kasper G. Linguistic Politeness: Current Research Issues // Journal of Pragmatics. - 1990, No.2. - P.193-218.
34. Kreckel M. Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse. – London: Academic Press,1981. - 316 p.
35. Labov W., Fanshel D. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. – New York: Academic Press,1977. - 392 p.
36. Leech G.N. Principles of Pragmatics. - London: Longman, 1983. - 250 p.
37. Levinson S.C. Pragmatics. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1983. - 420p.
38. Malinowski B. The Meaning of meaning. – London: Routledge, 1975.- 336p.
39. Morgan J. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts // Syntax and Semantics. – 1978. -Vol. 9: Pragmatics. – P. 261-280.
40. Partridge J.G. Semantic, Pragmatic and Syntactic Correlates: An Analysis of Performative Verbs Based on English Data. - Tubingen: Narr,1982. - 172 p.
41. Russell B.On denoting. – London: Mind, 1957– 479 p.
42. Sadock J. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic, 1974.- 353 p.
43. Searle J. R. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.-120p.
44. Searle J. R. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979 - 137p.
45. Searle J.R., Vanderveken D. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1985. - 227 p.
46. Sperber, D., Wilson D.Relevance: Communication and cognition. - Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. – 210p.