Везде
Speech acts as a linguistic category: The case of discourse formulae
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Speech acts as a linguistic category: The case of discourse formulae
Annotation
PII
10.31857/0373-658X.2021.2.7-
DOI
10.31857/0373-658X.2021.2.7-27
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Ekaterina Rakhilina 
Affiliation:
HSE University
Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russia, Moscow
Polina Bychkova Svetlana Zhukova
Edition
Issue 2
Pages
7-27
Abstract

The paper suggests an approach to conversion of the philosophical speech acts classification into a typological category. The main challenge of this task lies in great variation of the form used to express the illocutionary force. Although the core speech acts are often associated with certain formal features (cf. intonation patterns or particular word order for questions), they do not allow to capture finer distinctions, like the difference between a compliment and an announcement. Furthermore, these features do not apply to the indirect speech acts, in which the form does not directly correspond to the meaning. To overcome this obstacle, the authors suggest to consider as markers the linguistic units outside the speech act: namely, discourse formulae, a special class of idiomatic responses like You bet!, No way!, Tell me about it! A list of over 700 discourse formulae was investigated for Russian, and corpus evidence shows that their use relies on the illocutionary force of the preceding utterance. Studying discourse formulae cross-linguistically makes it possible to reveal universally relevant pragmatic oppositions among their contexts. A case study is presented in this paper, dealing with a brief selection of stimuli contexts for English and Russian discourse formulae used for refusing and prohibiting. The results indicate that discourse formulae can be regarded as a linguistic tool for verification of the standard classification of speech acts and further contribution to it.

Keywords
dialogue,discourse,discourse formulae,pragmatics,speech acts
Acknowledgment

The study was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Russia (075-15-2020-793).

Received
11.09.2020
Date of publication
26.03.2021
Number of purchasers
23
Views
368
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Previous versions
10.31857/0373-658X.2021.2.7-27 Дата внесения правок в статью - 11.09.2020
Cite   Download pdf

References

1. Баранов, Добровольский 2008 — Baranov A. N., Dobrovol’skij D. O. Aspekty teorii frazeologii [Aspects of the theory of phraseology]. Moscow: Znak, 2008.

2. Баранов, Добровольский 2014 — Baranov A. N., Dobrovol’skij D. O. Speech formulae in Dosotevsky’s language: Semantic and pragmatic factors. Yazyk, soznanie, kommunikatsiya. Krasnykh V. V., Izotov A. I. (eds.). Moscow: MAKS Press, 2014, 32–37.

3. Бычкова 2020 — Bychkova P. A. Discursive formulae of confirming in typological perspective. Jezikoslovni Zapiski, 2020, 27: 111–128.

4. Бычкова и др. 2019 — Bychkova P. A., Rakhilina E. V., Slepak E. A. Discursive formulae, polysemy, and gesture marking. Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka imeni V. V. Vinogradova, 2019, 21: 256–284.

5. Гришина 2017 — Grishina E. A. Russkaya zhestikulyatsiya s lingvisticheskoi tochki zreniya. Korpusnye issledovaniya [Russian gesticulation in linguistic perspective: Corpus studies]. Moscow: YaSK Publishing House, 2017.

6. Жукова и др. 2019 — Zhukova S. Yu., Orekhov B. V., Rakhilina E. V. Russian discursive formulae: A diachronic approach. Trudy Instituta russkogo yazyka imeni V. V. Vinogradova, 2019, 21: 142–164.

7. Иомдин 2003 — Iomdin L. L. Megaproblems of microsyntax. Proc. of the International Conf. in Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies “Dialogue 2003”. Moscow: Nauka, 2003, 216–222.

8. Кибрик, Молчанова 2014 — Kibrik A. A., Molchanova N. B. Channels of multimodal communication: A relative input into understanding of the discourse. Materials of the seminar “Multimodal communication: Theoretical and empirical studies” (Moscow, 2013). Moscow: Buki Vedi, 2014, 99–114.

9. Кибрик, Подлесская 2006 — Kibrik A. A., Podlesskaya V. I. The problem of segmentation of spoken discourse and the speaker’s cognitive system. Kognitivnye issledovaniya. Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Solov’ev V. D. (ed.). Moscow: Institute of Psychology, 2006, 138–158.

10. Киприянов 1983 — Kipriyanov V. F. Problemy teorii chastei rechi i slova-kommunikativy v sovremennom russkom yazyke [Problems of the part-of-speech theory and “communicatives” in Modern Russian]. Moscow: Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute, 1983.

11. Козюк 2020 — Kozyuk E. Yu. Sravnitel’noe opisanie diskursivnykh formul otkaza i otritsaniya v russkom i angliiskom yazykakh [Comparative description of discourse formulae with the meaning of refusal and disagreement in Russian and English]. Master’s thesis. Moscow: Higher School of Economics, 2020. https://www.hse.ru/edu/vkr/370819640.

12. Меликян 1999 — Melikyan V. Yu. On the grammatical and derivational paradigm of the communicemes. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 1999, 6: 43–53.

13. Меликян 2001а — Melikyan V. Yu. On the main types of unsegmentable sentences in Russian. Filologicheskie nauki, 2001, 6: 79–89.

14. Плунгян 2011 — Plungian V. A. Vvedenie v grammaticheskuyu semantiku: grammaticheskie znacheniya i grammaticheskie sistemy yazykov mira [Introduction to grammatical semantics: Grammatical meanings and grammatical systems of the world’s languages]. Moscow: Russian State Univ. for the Humanities, 2011.

15. Подлесская, Кибрик 2009 — Podlesskaya V. I., Kibrik A. A. Discursive markers in the structure of spoken story: A corpus study. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conf. “Dialogue”, 2009, 8(15): 390–395.

16. Пужаева и др. 2018 — Puzhaeva S. Yu., Gerasimenko E. A., Zakharova E. S., Rakhilina E. V. Automatic extraction of discursive formulae from Russian texts. Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya, 2018, 16: 5–18.

17. Рахилина, Резникова 2013 — Rakhilina E. V., Reznikova T. I. Frame-based approach to lexical typology. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 2013, 2: 3–31.

18. Рахилина и др. 2019 — Rakhilina E. V., Plungian V. A., Puzhaeva S. Yu. “It is too early to speak of that…”. Sbornik statei k 85-letiyu V. S. Khrakovskogo. Gerasimov D. V., Dmitrenko S. Yu., Zaika N. M. (eds.). Moscow: YaSK Publishing House, 2019, 448–462.

19. Шаронов 1997 — Sharonov I. A. Communicatives as a functional class and as an object of lexicographical description. Rusistika segodnya, 1997, 2: 89–111.

20. Шаронов 2012 — Sharonov I. A. “God be with you!”: Theory and practice of interpreting phraseological communicatives. Logicheskii analiz yazyka. Adresatsiya diskursa. Arutyunova N. D. (ed.). Moscow: Indrik, 2012, 437–448.

21. Шаронов 2018 — Sharonov I. A. Semantic and pragmatic aspects of describing parenthetical words and communicatives. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya, 2018, 51: 58–68.

22. Эндресен и др. 2020 — Endresen A. A., Zhukova V. A., Mordashova D. D., Rakhilina E. V., Lyashevskaya O. N. The Russian Constructicon: A new linguistic resource, its design and key characteristics. Computational linguistics and intellectual technologies. Papers from the Annual International Conf. “Dialogue”, 2020, 19(26): 241–255.

23. Янко 2004 — Yanko T. E. Towards a typology of illocutionary acts. Sokrovennye smysly. Slovo. Tekst. Kul’tura. Sbornik statei v chest’ N. D. Arutyunovoi. Apresjan Yu. D. (ed.). Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskikh Kul’tur, 2004.

24. Янко 2017 — Yanko T. E. Kommunikativnye strategii russkoi rechi [Communicative strategies of spoken Russian]. Moscow: Yazyki Slavyanskoi Kul’tury, 2017.

25. Aijmer 1997 — Aijmer K. I think — an English modal particle. Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives, 1997, 1: 47.

26. Aijmer 2014 — Aijmer K. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Routledge, 2014.

27. Ameka 1987 — Ameka F. A. Comparative analysis of linguistic routines in two languages: English and Ewe. Journal of Pragmatics, 1987, 11: 299–326.

28. Austin 1975 — Austin J. L. How to do things with words. 2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.

29. Barotto, Mauri 2018 — Barotto A., Mauri C. Constructing lists to construct categories. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 2018, 30: 95–134.

30. Bender 1978 — Bender B. W. 1977 Linguistic Institute Report. LSA Bulletin, 1978: 17–23.

31. Boas, Ziem 2018 — Boas H. C., Ziem A. Constructing a constructicon for German. Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages, 2018, 22: 183.

32. Bybee 2014 — Bybee J. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Tomasello M. (ed.). New York: Psychology Press, 2014, 145–167.

33. Coulmas 1981 — Coulmas F. Introduction: Conversational routine. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. Coulmas F. (ed.). The Hague: Mouton Publ., 1981, 1–17.

34. Croft 1994 — Croft W. Speech act classification, language typology and cognition. Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. Tsohatzidis S. L. (ed.). London: Routledge, 1994, 460–477.

35. Enfield 2013 — Enfield N. J. Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2013.

36. Fillmore 1979 — Fillmore C. J. On fluency. Individual differences in language ability and language behavior. Fillmore C. J., Kempler D., Wang W. S. Y. (eds.). New York: Academic Press, 1979, 85–101.

37. Fillmore 1984 — Fillmore C. J. Remarks on contrastive pragmatics. Contrastive linguistics: Prospects and problems. Fisiak J. (ed.). Berlin: Mouton, 1984.

38. Fillmore et al. 1988 — Fillmore C. J., Kay P., O’Connor M. C. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 1988: 501–538.

39. Fillmore et al. 2012 — Fillmore C. J., Lee-Goldman R. R., Rhodes R. The FrameNet constructicon. Sign-based construction grammar. Boas H. C., Sag I. A. (eds.). Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2012, 309–372.

40. Fraser 1996 — Fraser B. Pragmatic markers. Pragmatics, 1996, 6: 167–190.

41. Grice 1993 — Grice P. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard Univ. Press, 1993.

42. Hellbernd, Sammler 2016 — Hellbernd N., Sammler D. Prosody conveys speaker’s intentions: Acoustic cues for speech act perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 2016, 88: 70–86.

43. Janda et al. 2018 — Janda L. A., Lyashevskaya O., Nesset T., Rakhilina E., Tyers F. M. A constructicon for Russian. Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages. Lyngfelt B., Borin L., Ohara K., Torrent T. T. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2018, 165–182.

44. Kay, Fillmore 1999 — Kay P., Fillmore C. J. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 1999, 75: 1–33.

45. Kibrik 2011 — Kibrik A. Interaction of the verbal, prosodic, and visual components in language understanding. Paper presented at the conf. “The Night Whites Language Workshop. St. Petersburg Winter Symposium on Experimental Studies of Speech and Language” (St. Petersburg, 16–17 December 2011).

46. Kissine 2013 — Kissine M. Speech act classifications. Pragmatics of speech actions. Sbisà M., Turner K. (eds.). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2013, 173–202.

47. Ohara 2013 — Ohara K. H. Toward constructicon building for Japanese in Japanese FrameNet. Veredas – Revista de Estudos Linguísticos, 2013, 17(1): 11–28.

48. Onodera 2011 — Onodera N. O. The grammaticalization of discourse markers. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Heine B., Narrog H. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011, 614–624.

49. Sadock, Zwicky 1985 — Sadock J. M., Zwicky A. M. Speech act distinctions in syntax. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 1985, 1: 155–196.

50. Salgueiro 2010 — Salgueiro A. B. Promises, threats, and the foundations of speech act theory. Pragmatics, 2010, 20: 213–228.

51. Sbisà, Turner (eds.) 2013 — Sbisà M., Turner K. (eds.). Pragmatics of speech actions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2013.

52. Searle 1976 — Searle J. R. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 1976, 5: 1–23.

53. Sköldberg et al. 2013 — Sköldberg E., Bäckström L., Borin L., Forsberg M., Lyngfelt B., Olsson L. J., Prentice J., Rydstedt R., Tingsell S., Uppström J. Between grammars and dictionaries: A Swedish constructicon. Proc. of eLex, 2013, 310–327.

54. Sorjonen 2001 — Sorjonen M. Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2001.

55. Torrent et al. 2014 — Torrent T. T., Meireles Lage L., Sampaio T. F., da Silva Tavares T., da Silva Matos E. E. Revisiting border conflicts between framenet and construction grammar: Annotation policies for the Brazilian Portuguese constructicon. Constructions and Frames, 2014, 6: 34–51.

56. Wechsler 1991 — Wechsler S. Verb second and illocutionary force. Views on phrase structure. Leffel K., Bouchard D. (eds.). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1991, 177–191.

57. Wierzbicka 1985 — Wierzbicka A. A semantic metalanguage for a crosscultural comparison of speech acts and speech genres. Language in Society, 1985, 14: 491–514.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate