Imperatives as Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
Yerevan State Linguistic University after V. Brusov
COURSE PAPER
THEME: IMPERATIVES AS DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS
Faculty: LIC
Year: 3rd
Group: tourism 1st
Student: Nare Yeremyan
Supervisor: Gayane Barseghyan
Yerevan 2011
INTRODUCTION
At present it has become quite obvious that a good amount of comprehension must be ascribed not to the rules of language, but to our ability to infer what the speaker’s intentions are in saying what he says. Linguists try to explain this in terms of theories known as pragmatics, which is the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed.
Basically, I have carried out the present paper based on the works of Searl, Austin, Culicover, Levinson, Yule. It is worth mentioning, that different linguists have different views upon the theme.
In general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act that is performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the hearer identifies, in accordance with the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed.
In accordance with the tasks and goals, the present paper consists of introduction, two chapters with their corresponding subchapters, conclusion and bibliography. The first chapter is devoted to the discussion of the three related acts – locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. It is worth mentioning, that the classification of speech acts varies from linguist to linguist. We studied the classification proposed by several linguists and presented in details in the first chapter. Whenever there is a direct relationship, we have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.
In the next point of the chapter we mostly
COURSE PAPER
THEME: IMPERATIVES AS DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS
Faculty: LIC
Year: 3rd
Group: tourism 1st
Student: Nare Yeremyan
Supervisor: Gayane Barseghyan
Yerevan 2011
INTRODUCTION
At present it has become quite obvious that a good amount of comprehension must be ascribed not to the rules of language, but to our ability to infer what the speaker’s intentions are in saying what he says. Linguists try to explain this in terms of theories known as pragmatics, which is the study of linguistic acts and the contexts in which they are performed.
Basically, I have carried out the present paper based on the works of Searl, Austin, Culicover, Levinson, Yule. It is worth mentioning, that different linguists have different views upon the theme.
In general, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act that is performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses regret. As an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the hearer identifies, in accordance with the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed.
In accordance with the tasks and goals, the present paper consists of introduction, two chapters with their corresponding subchapters, conclusion and bibliography. The first chapter is devoted to the discussion of the three related acts – locutionary, illocutionary, perlocutionary. It is worth mentioning, that the classification of speech acts varies from linguist to linguist. We studied the classification proposed by several linguists and presented in details in the first chapter. Whenever there is a direct relationship, we have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.
In the next point of the chapter we mostly
Bibliography: 1. James R. Hurford and Brendan Heasley, “Semantics”, Cambridge, 2003. 2. John I. Saeed, “Semantics”, Bodmin, Cormwall, 2003. 3. John Lyons, “Semantics”, Cambridge, 1994. 4. Levinson Stephen C., “Pragmatics”, New York – Cambridge, 1983. 5. Sadock J. M. Toward Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 1974. 6. Searl J. R. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, 1969. 7. Searle John R. “Speech Acts”. London: Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1976. 8. Yule, George, “Pragmatics”, editor H. G. Widdowson – Oxford university press, 2008. 9. Кобрина Н. А., Болдыреж Н. Н., Худяков А. А., Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М.: Высшая школа, 2007. 10. Серль Дж. Классификация иллокутивных актов. – Новое в зарубежной лингвистике, вып. 17. М.: Прогресс, 1986. 12. Cynthia Voigt, “Homecoming”, New York, 1981. 13. Ellen Schwamm, “How he saved her”, New York, 1983. 14. Jane Austen, “Persuasion”, Bantam Books, New York, 1984. 15. W. Somerset Maugham, “The Moon and Sixpence”, Raduga, M., 1984. 16. Daphne du Maurier, “Rebecca”, Cornwell, (England:country), 1990.