Speech Acts and Communication Flashcards
What is pragmatics?
“The science of what can be done by uttering words and
sentences”
What are the main points of Wittgenstein’s language games?
I’ll make it as short as I can:
To Wittgenstein language has not just an ostensive/representational function, and there is not an essence of language to be found. For this reason, he conceives words and utterances more as tools of communicating, that we use to play our language game. In this view, the meaning is in the role that a certain tool plays in the game.
To him, “the speaking of a language is part of an activity, or of a form of life”.
That is why language games are opened and fuzzy, because there is no such thing that is common to all the things that we call “game”, and yet we understand each other when talking and they are, indeed, games. It’s a matter of following the rules of the use of those instrument that are the words; these rules are mostly implicit, unnoticed and, therefore, pragmatic.
What are some important features of speech acts?
– the linguistic forms (words, sentences), with which the actions are performed
– the speech act types and goals
– the non-linguistic actions, objects and scenes embedded in the interaction
– the action sequences, in which they occur
– their commitments to assumptions and intentions and the common ground providing their background
– communicative strategies and principles
Why is it possible to say that between linguistic form and speech act types there is a many-many relationship?
Because with the same utterance you can do different things: declare, ask, order etc.
So, one form can have different functions in communication
What are the three levels of speech acts described by Austin and then by Searle?
– The locutionary act (uttering a sentence), including all aspects of the utterance plus the ‘propositional act’ of expressing a proposition (‘that p’).
– The illocutionary act of using the utterance with an intended goal/effect (get an object or answer).
– The perlocutionary act of achieving a specific effect in the listener (which is not always easy to distinguish from an illocutionary act).
What are the five types in which Searle divides the speech acts?
- assertives = speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, e.g. statements and reciting
- directives = speech acts that are to cause the hearer to take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands and advice
- commissives = speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, e.g. promises and oaths
- expressives = speech acts that express the speaker’s attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses and thanks
- declarations = speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptisms, pronouncing someone husband and wife, ending a lecture
Can all speech acts be easily classified into Searle’s 5 categories?
Nope. Think about praying, talking to your self or swearing towards the damn coffee mug that I have just spilled over my desk writing this card. These things hardly fit in those categories
What is the paradox that Moore underlines about commitment?
It is that when you say that “p”, you also commit yourself to the truth that “p”. It would be paradoxical to say that p but not believe in p.
E.g.: Being superstitious is ignorant, but not being so brings bad luck
What is dialogue game theory?
It is a theory that shows how every partner in a dialogue is committed to what they say. From this point of view, a dialogue becomes unacceptable if there is a contradiction between speech acts and any commitment in the store.
A speaker who performs a speech act ‘takes responsibility’ that certain conditions are met. Responsibility for p being the case is essentially connected with the possibility of being called to account if p is not the case, and such a possibility can be taken as an indication of responsibility. This is what makes a speaker a rational speaking partner
What is the common ground in communication?
It is common ground that p in a group if all members accept (for the purpose of the conversation) that p and all believe that all accept that p, and all believe that all believe that all accept that p.
Is there a difference in commitments and assumptions between naming and requesting?
Yes. When A names something to B, the latter can correct, clarify the utterance or answer to it, but when A requests something B can also follow, reject, deny the request and so on
What is the cooperativity principle?
It is the Gricean principle that states that, when having a conversation, speakers usually are cooperative, for the sake of the good working of the conversation
Which are the Gricean maxims?
- Quality: Be truthful!
- Quantity: Be informative, say not too much / little!
- Relation: Be relevant, speak to the point!
- Manner: Be clear, avoid ambiguity!
If you want to see something that breaks every Griecean rule: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEjo0ajod1M
What happens in an indirect speech act, as described by Searle?
In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer.
Anyway, this is better described by Grice and it goes under the name of “conversational implicature”, but let’s stick to what Pulvermüller says
What is the “social N400”?
Implausible sentences, if put in a context in which they make sense, do not elicit an N400 response; if heard out of that context, instead, they do.
This could be a brain correlate of common ground.
