Speech acts in spontaneous discourse - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Speech acts in spontaneous discourse

Загружено в:

26.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

259.5 KB

Speech acts in spontaneous discourse mavzusida yozgan 1

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ……………………..…………………………… 3 CHAPTER I. PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SPEECH ACT THEORY 1.1. Theory of Discourse Interpretation……………... 7 1.2. Issues in speech act theory………………………………………………… 10 1.3. Classification of Speech Acts: Direct and indirect speech acts……..……. 23 1.4. Speech acts and speech events…………………………… ……………..... 26 CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN NATURAL SPONTANEOUS DISCOURSE 2.1. The notion of a request in speech act and its classification…………………. 37 2.2. A Contrastive analysis of English and Uzbek Requests …………………….. 44 The conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 57 The list of used references……………………………………………………...… 60 2

INTRODUCTION Our Republic was faced with the necessity of creating new legislation corresponding with new realities, with the conditions of Independence after the Independence was proclaimed and the Parliament coped with this task, there have been adopted new Laws and new Resolutions. The resolution of the President of Uzbekistan “On measures to further improve system of foreign languages teaching” dated from 10 December 2012 1 ; the resolution of the Ministers’ Committee of the Republic of Uzbekistan “About the Affirmation of the Education Standards on Foreign Languages in Education System” dated from 8 May 2013; The resolution No 4947 of the President of Uzbekistan “Strategies of Development of the Republic of Uzbekistan on Five Priority Directions for 2017 - 2021 years ” dated from 7 February 2017 are being implemented as well. Persistent works on raising awareness of the public concerning the essence and significance of the resolution“. Aiming to implement the resolution, some special people in the government are working on preparing and approving new teaching plans and programs taking into account introduction of foreign language teaching from the initial classes of the public schools, ensuring its execution are being carried out. Under the guidance of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, special attention is paid to the formation of harmoniously developed, highly educated, modern thinking generation, able to take responsibility for the fate of the Homeland. Therefore , the task of education, the task of rising up a new generation who is capable of national renaissance will remain the prerogative of the state and constitute a priority. At present great importance is attached to the study and teaching of foreign languages. Nowedays educating and rearing our generation on a highes level is our main duty 2 . However, analysis of the current system of organizing language learning shows that learning standards, curricula and textbooks do not fully meet the current requirements, particularly in the use of advanced in formation and media 1 Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Measures For Further Enhancement Of The System Of Teaching Of Foreign Languages”. Tashkent, December 10, 2012, № PD-1875. 2 Мирзиёев Ш . М . Миллий тара ққиёт йўлимизни қатьият билан давом эттириб янги босқичга кўтарамиз. 1-tom. Тошкент “ Ўзбекистон ” 20 17 3

technologies. Education in mainly conducted in traditional methods. Further development of a continuum of foreign languages learning at all levels of education; improving skills of teachers and provision of modern teaching materials are required. According to recently established teaching plans, learners are likely to readily pick up any foreign languages providing that they themselves should search data concerning different topics they need. Due to this reason, large proportion of students, especially, those who are studying at the university devoted to language learning having been provided with tasks such as making project and coursework, library research, diploma works. Besides that, these tasks can teach students to be an independent learner and to learn everything autonomously. Actuality of the theme: Discourse analysis is a rapidly growing and evolving field. Current research in this field now flows from numerous academic disciplines that are very different from one another. Included, of course, are the disciplines in which models for understanding and methods for analyzing, discourse first developed, such as linguistics, anthropo logy, and philosophy? But also included are disciplines that have applied and thus often extended such models and methods to problems within their own academic domains, such as communication, cognitive psychology, social psychology, and arti ficial intelligence 3 Given this disciplinary diversity, it is no surprise that the terms "discourse" and "discourse analysis" have different meanings to scholars in different fields 4 . T he importance of conversational context for the purpose of recognizing a speaker’s speech act (and in so doing, identifying the intention or function of an utterance within a conversation) is widely acknowledged in all fields related to the understanding of natural language. The disciplines that make claims to the study of discourse are extremely cosmopolitan. The interdisciplinary nature of this research has meant a need to read widely in the literature of a variety of sub-fields of 3 4 Schiffrin Deborah, Tannen Deborah, and Hamilton Heidi E. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 4

linguistics, the philosophy of language, sociology, ethnography, discourse-based linguistics and cognitive psychology. The aim of the theme: to point out patterns of behavior that are repeatedly to be found in the data, and in so doing to discover something new about the nature of conversational behavior as shown by the interplay of speech acts, to examine the problems concerning the notions ‘discourse’ and speech acts in spontaneous discourse. Tasks of the theme: - To study what does discurs analyses distinguishes; - To analise the issues in speech act theory; - identify sequences of speech acts can have dependencies of more than just one conversational turn. - make a distinction between the underlying act, and the recognition of the behavior that act represents or counts as within the conversation. - To analise the notion of a request in speech act and its classification; - To identify a Contrastive analysis of English and Uzbek Requests; - apply and validate my observations by looking at real speech as it occurs in conversations; - to styde the style of conversation. Scientific novelty of the theme :  t o account for the fact that sequences of speech acts have dependencies of more than one conversational turn.  to develop a model of referential speech acts that rely on the identification of previous speech acts and the state of the prevailing context space for their ‘correct’ analysis.  to highlight the difference between the underlying act, or function of the utterance, and the behavior that it represents in context.  to show that the theoretical model can be applied to and validated against real conversational data. 5

Practical value of the theme : The state-trace model characterizes many distinct types of speech acts from the utterance and the context combined. These are roughly representative of the basic speech act types, which can later be used in the characterization of other speech acts. And it also consists of underlining two points of view that pose serious obstacles to coming to a total understanding about how we use language to communicate. The first is a kind of speciesism: because discourse is language, it must have its explanation rooted in the field of linguistics. Discourse couldn’t be distinguished from other theories such as cognition, mental models, agency, belief structures, action and socio-ethnological factors too. This makes it very difficult to keep all the issues in play at the same time, but it is a mistake to think that any approach could be complete without at least addressing how it fits in with other related areas. The structure of the theme : The research work consists of Introduction: - explain the importance, purpose, significance and the objectives of the present work. The first chapter concerns the historical and theoretical backgrounds of philosophical foundations of speech act theory and the theory of discourse interpretation . Chapter II analyzes current researches focused on linguistic approaches to discourse analysis and argued for the model that provides a powerful formalism for the characterization of a wide variety of different basic speech acts. Chapter II is based on providing a new approach to speech act recognition, built on the foundations of existing work, and in particular extending earlier research as detailed in Schiffrin. The work covers conclusion and the list of used references. The work consists of 62 pages. 6

CHAPTER I PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS OF SPEECH ACT THEORY 1.1. Theory of Discourse Interpretation In linguistics, analysts often define discourse in one of two ways: as structure or as process 5 . Structural definitions focus on what constitutes a unit of discourse: "language above the sentence or above the clause" 6 . To linguists interested in the struc ture of language, discourse analysis is the search for units of language that demonstrate a relationship, that occur in predictable patterns, and have rules that govern the occurrence of these elements . In other branches of linguistics, discourse is defined as “any aspect of language use” and “the study of language use” 7 or as a process of using language to accomplish a purpose or action. These linguists are interested in the way language functions to accomplish goals or activities in people's lives; hence, discourse is the analysis of language as it is connected to “meanings, activities, and systems outside of itself” 8 . Within this perspective, the structures or forms of language cannot be separated from the way people use language in their daily lives to accom plish a purpose or function . So abundant are definitions of discourse that many linguistics books on the subject now open with a survey of definitions. In their collection of classic papers in discourse analysis, for example, Jaworski and Coupland include ten definitions from a wide range of sources. They all, however, fall into the three main categories noted above: (1) anything beyond the sentence, (2) language use, and (3) a broader range of social practice that includes nonlinguistic and nonspecific instances of language. The definitional issues associated with discourse and discourse analyses are by no means unique. It must seem to those slightly familiar with the term ‘discourse’ that terms are used interchangeably. Its companion term, discourse analysis, seems to be used especially frequently, even randomly, so that it is difficult 5 Van Dijk T.A. and Kintsch W. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press, 1997. 6 Stubbs M. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. 7 (Fasold R. Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990) 8 Schiffrin D. Approaches to Discourse. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1994. 7

to know exactly what is meant by the term. One reason is that a number of different academic disciplines use the term to describe the methods and models they develop to understand language and human behavior. "In cluded are not just disciplines in which models for understanding, and methods for analyzing, discourse first developed (i.e., linguistics, an thropology, sociology, philosophy), but also disci - plines that have applied (and thus often extended) such models and methods to problems within their own particular academic domains, e.g., communication, social psychology, and artificial intelligence. The use of the concept is that developed in linguistics where a central goal of most discourse approaches is to discover and demonstrate how participants in a conversation make sense of what is going on (how they both create meaning and understand others' meanings) within the social and cultural context of face-to-face interaction. The notion ‘speech event’ is closely related with the notion of discourse, because the notion of discourse refers to a continuous stretch of language larger than a sentence constituting a speech event. Although ‘discourse’ is often regarded as a spontaneous realization of language where no linguistic structuring can or should be discovered, it seems essential to adopt a broader perspective view of it as a dynamic process of expression and comprehension governing the performance of people within linguistic interaction. There exists a variety of rules, conventions and linguistic regularities which determine the features and functions of speech events. Among them are pragmatic and psychological parameters, the purpose and function of discourse, its communicative characteristics, etc. Discourse analysis distinguishes between different functional varieties of speech events, such as monologues and dialogues, oratory, narrative, and so on. All these varieties or genres appear to be in relation to each other particularly as regards the choice of linguistic units, as well as rules and conventions governing their use in speech. The contrasts of the informative and the imaginative, formal and informal, spoken and written media in communication make us think of the mutual 8

dependencies between discourse functions as an important parameter in establishing their essential features. In other words, the contrast of linguistic regularities in each case gives us a clue to a better understanding of their properties. For example, spoken discourse is probably best described by contrasting it with what is known as written discourse and vice versa. Hence an attempt to regard ‘discoursal’ peculiarities as sufficiently systematic features which have a direct bearing on the functioning of discrete lexical units. 9 The notion ‘speech’ should not be understood literally as ‘perceptible speech’, but, rather, as ‘potential speech’, as it were. Thus, ‘speech event’ in the relevant sense here and in the following is not limited to actual speech or utterance situations; instead, it should be understood as ranging over events of ‘language activity’, irrespective of whether it is externalized or merely internal. In other and simpler words: ‘speech’ in the notion ‘speech event’ refers to not only the act of speaking but also to the linguistic act of thinking (and hence attitude predicates like ‘think’, ‘believe’, ‘wish’, ‘feel’, etc., introduce a secondary speech event. 10 Discourse analysis is a method of seeking in any connected discrete linear material, whether language or language-like, which contains more than one elementary sentence, some global structure char acterizing the whole discourse (the linear material), or large sections of it. The structure is a pattern of occurrence (i.e. a recurrence) of segments of the discourse relative to each other; such relative occurrence of parts is the only type of structure that can be in vestigated by inspection of the discourse without bringing into account other types of data, such as relations of meanings through out the discourse. It turns out that the segments of a discourse which occur in a regular way relative to each other arc not whole sentences but morpheme sequences such as words, parts of words, and phra ses, or the equivalent in mathematics and other non-language material. More exactly, such a segment is a whole constituent or a sequence of constituents; where a constituent, for language, is a segment of a sentence resulting from any grammatical analysis of the sentence. These segments do not themselves occur so often and so regularly as 9 Gvishiani N. Lexical structures and discourse // Folia Anglistica., 1997, No 2 10 Sigurðsson H.A. The syntax of Person, Tense, and speech features. //Italian Journal of Linguistics 16 (2004): 219-251. 9

to constitute a pattern. Therefore we group certain of them into classes, which do recur regularly. Discourse analysis, then, finds the recurrence relative to each other of classes of mor pheme sequences, given segmentation into morpheme sequences by a suitable grammar, and having the intention that the classes set up are such that their regularity of occurrence will correspond lo some relevant semantic interpretation for the discourse. The problem is to set up separately for each discourse such classes as have the greatest relevant regularity of occurrence relative to each other within it; and if possible to find a general way of solving this problem for any discourse. 1.2. Issues in Speech Act Theory Pragmatics is the science of language seen in relation to its users. Language is the chief means of human communication. Various uses of language are governed by the conditions of society, inasmuch as these conditions determine the users’ access to, and control of, their communicative means. Speaking a language is performing speech acts, these include, among others, making statements, giving commands, making requests, making promises, and so on. These acts are in general made possible by, and are performed in accordance with certain rules for the use of linguistic elements. The reason for concentrating on the study of speech acts is simply this: all linguistic communication involves linguistic acts. As Searle puts it, “The unit of linguistic communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the symbol, word or sentence but rather the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance of the speech act.” In the 1950’s John Langshaw Austin provided the early underpinnings for the modern theory of speech acts developed subsequently by his student John Rogers Searle. In particular John Searle’s Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of language took up and developed Austin’s account of illocutionary acts, as described in How To Do Things with Words. These philosophers developed their theories in part in opposition to another philosophical school, the Logical Positivists. Logical positivism was developed by a group of philosophers called the Vienna Circle in the 10

1920’s and 1930’s. According to logical positivists, there are only two sources of real knowledge: logic and empirical observation. Anything else is meaningless conjecture. Logic follows strict rules of proof and tests of internal consistency. For example, the statement I will meet you yesterday is nonsensical and meaningless. We know this without reference to anything other than the meanings of the words. It is illogical, internally inconsistent. The logical positivists would say that we are using analytical knowledge when we analyze the possible meanings of this sentence. An example of empirically observed knowledge is: At the surface of the earth, the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 ms2 . This claim can be verified by experiment. This category of knowledge, the logical positivists referred to as synthetic knowledge. As one can see, the logical positivists accepted only scientific and mathematical knowledge as valid. In their view, any statement which could not be tested either via logic, or via experiment, was meaningless. They called such statements metaphysical. An example of a metaphysical statement (and therefore meaningless in their view) is God exists. Another example: God does not exist . What the logical positivists were doing was privileging scientific language (logic, mathematics) above ordinary natural languages (English, German, etc.) 11 . Scientific statements were either true or false, and could be verified to be one or the other. For them natural language is ambiguous and often just a babble of unfounded opinions. Ordinary language was useful for ordinary life but not for serious thought. If this philosophy sounds extreme, it is. But many people with science and engineering backgrounds often hold this philosophy although they probably will not admit it. It rears its head when the so-called ‘hard’ sciences sneer at the ‘soft’ sciences, such as sociology, or at the humanities, such as history or literature. These ‘softer’ subjects cannot meet the austere standards of the logical positivists. But are they therefore without serious meaning? 11 Searle J.R. Indirect speech acts, in (eds) P. Cole & J.L. Morgan Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press, 1975. 11

In this unit, we will look at what happened in the branch of philosophy, with origins in the British tradition of thinking about language, which later on came to be known as Speech Act Theory (SAT). Speech Act Theory was developed by the Oxford philosopher John L. Austin, whose 1955 lectures at Harvard University were published posthumously as How To Do Things With Words in 1962. Austin’s approach has been developed since, and there is now a large literature devoted to the subject. Austin’s work is, in many respects, a reaction to some traditional and influential attitudes to language. We can risk simplifying these as a starting point. The attitudes can be said to involve three related assumptions, as follows: a) that the basic sentence-type in language is declarative (i.e. a statement or assertion); b) that the principal use of language is to describe states of affairs (by using statements); c) that the meaning of utterances can be described in terms of their truth or falsity. Among Austin’s contemporaries these assumptions were associated with the philosophers known as logical positivists, a term originally applied to the mathematicians and philosophers of the Vienna Circle. An important issue for logical positivist approaches is how far the meaning of a sentence is reducible to its verifiability, i.e. the extent to which, and by which, it can be shown to be true or false. Austin’s 12 opposition to these views is the ‘common-sense’ one that language is used for far more than simply stating the facts and that, for the most part, utterances cannot be said to be either true or false. He makes two important observations. The first is that not all sentences are statements and that much of conversation is made up of questions, exclamations, commands, and expressions of wishes like the examples (ex. 1 – 6) below: 1) Excuse me! 2) Are you serving? 3) Hello! 12 John Austin J.L.How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998 12

4) Six pints of stout and a packet of peanuts, please! 5) Give me the dry roasted ones. 6) How much? Are you serious? Such utterances (ex. 1 – 6) are not descriptions and cannot be said to be true or false. Austin’s second observation was that even in utterances using the grammatical form of declaratives, not all are used to make statements. Austin identified a subset of declaratives that are not used to make true or false statements, such as in the following examples (taken from Austin): 7) I promise to take a taxi home. 8) I bet you five pounds that he won’t win. 9) I declare this meeting open. 10) I warn you that legal action will ensue. 11) I name this ship “The Flying Dutchman”. Austin claimed that these utterances contained in themselves a kind of action. Thus by uttering: I promise to take a taxi home a speaker makes a promise rather than just describing one. Austin called this kind of utterance a performative utterance and it can be characterized by the following features: - the action is performed by the first verb in the sentence, - the adverb ‘hereby’ can be inserted to stress its function, e.g. I hereby request that you leave my property , - subject appears in the first person, - the verb is used in the present indicative active. We can contrast performative and non-performative (later to be known as constative ) utterances by the first two features. A speaker would not, for example, expect the uttering of (12) to constitute the action of cooking a cake. These sentences describe actions independent of the linguistic act. Below we can see the use of ‘hereby’ with these sentences. 12) I cook this cake. 13) I hereby cook this cake. 14) I start this car. 13

15) I hereby start this car. In Austin’s terminology a performative that works is called felicitous and one that does not is infelicitous . For them to work, such performatives have to satisfy the social conventions, i.e. we cannot, for example, name a ship by walking up to it in dock and saying I name this ship “The Flying Dutchman” . Less explicitly, there are social conventions governing the giving of orders to co-workers, greeting strangers, etc. Austin’s name for the enabling conditions necessary for a performative is felicity conditions (FCs). In order for us to make it more comprehensible, the following chart can be presented: UTTERANCES NON-PERFORMATIVES PERFORMATIVES (CONSTATIVES) doing something through saying it saying something true false felicitous infelicitous (happy) (unhappy) Having examined the social conventions that support performatives, it is clear that performatives range from those which are highly institutionalized or even ceremonial requiring sophisticated and overt support, (such as the example of a judge pronouncing a sentence) to less formal acts like warning, thanking, etc. To describe the role of felicity conditions, Austin presented a very general schema: A. There exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further, the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked. B. The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and completely. 14

C. Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the party of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts or feelings, and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further must actually so conduct themselves subsequently. If the speech act is unsuccessful through failing to fulfill the (A) or (B) conditions above, then Austin describes it as a misfire . If the act is insincerely performed (violation of condition C), then it is an abuse of a speech act, as for example saying I bet ... with no intention to pay, or I promise ... when we have already intended to break the promise. Linguists, as opposed to philosophers, have tended not to be so interested in this second type of infelicity, since the primary speech act has, in these cases, been successfully communicated. The following kinds of misfires can be identified: - misinvocations appear when there is no such procedure, or because the procedure in question cannot be made to apply in the way attempted; - misapplications where the procedure does exist all right but cannot be applied as purported; - misexecutions the purported act is vitiated by a flaw or hitch in the conduct ceremony. To illustrate, let’s observe those violations of speech acts occurring in everyday life situations. For instance, assume that a British citizen says to his wife: I hereby divorce you. He will not thereby get a divorce, because no such procedure exists (as in A whereby merely by saying I hereby divorce you divorce can be achieved. As an example of a failure of condition A, consider a priest baptizing the wrong baby, or the right baby with the wrong name. As far as condition B is concerned, the words uttered have to be the conventionally correct ones. During a marriage ceremony, if the bridegroom’s response to Wilt thou have this woman tothy wedded wife ... so long as ye both shall live? is Yes , it will not do in the Church of England. The bridegroom has to say I will. Next, the procedure must be complete as required by B: if a sentence I bet you six pounds that Mary will come 15

tonight was uttered, and then there was no satisfactory uptake (no-one would say e.g. O.K. I’m on or I’ll go for it ), in this case a bet simply fails to come off. Finally, violations of the C conditions are insincerities: for a juror to find a defendant guilty when he knows him to be innocent would be to violate condition C; and promising to do something without the intention of doing it, would be a violation of C. Looking at the earlier examples of performative utterances, we can say that they are characterized by the following features: - begin with a first person subject ‘I’, - are indicative active utterances in the simple present, - contain a second person – object ‘you’, e.g. I promise you… , I warn you …, etc. - contain the performative verb as the main verb, for example: promise, warn, sentence, name, bet, pronounce. Generally, performative nature of these utterances can be emphasized by inserting the adverb ‘hereby’, as described ear earlier, thus I hereby sentence you to... . Utterances with these characteristics can be called explicit performatives . The importance of SAT lies in the way that Austin and others managed to extend their analysis from these explicit performatives to other utterances. The first step was to point out that in some cases the same speech act seems to be performed but with a relaxation of some of the special characteristics mentioned above. We regularly meet utterances like those below (ex. 16 – 19), where this is so: You are (hereby) charged with treason. Passengers are requested to avoid jumping out of the aircraft. Five pounds says he doesn't make the semi-final. Come up and see me sometime. The aforementioned sentences (ex. 16 – 19) can be easily replaced by the corresponding explicit performatives (ex. 16a – 19a), as below: 16a) I (hereby) charge you with treason. 17a) We request that passengers avoid jumping out of the aircraft. 18 a) I bet you five pounds that he doesn't make the semi-final. 16

19 a) I invite you to come up and see me sometime. It seems reasonable to say that the sentences (ex. 16 – 19) could be uttered in order to perform the same speech acts as those in (ex. 16a – 19a). In fact, it seems that none of the special characteristics of performative utterances is indispensable to their performance. How then do we recognize these other performatives, which we can call implicit performatives ? Answers to this have varied somewhat in the development of the theory but Austin’s original contention was that it was an utterance’s ability to be expanded to an explicit performative that identified it as a performative utterance. Austin discussed at length the various linguistic means by which more implicit performatives could be marked, including the mood of the verb, auxiliary verbs, intonation, etc. Later on in his work, Austin came to the conclusion that all utterances not only bear a certain meaning, but also “perform specific actions through having specific forces. ” 13 On any occasion, the action performed by producing an utterance will consist of three related acts: 1. Locutionary act – “the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression” in other words, the act of saying something that makes sense in a language, i.e. follows the rules of pronunciation and grammar. 2. Illocutionary act – the action intended by the speaker; an utterance which is formed with some kind of function in mind. The illocutionary act is performed through the communicative force of an utterance. It is the making of a statement, an offer, an explanation etc. This is also known as the illocutionary force of the sentence. This is what Austin and his successors have mainly been concerned with: the uses to which language can be put in society. In fact, the term ‘speech acts’ is often used with just this meaning of illocutionary acts. 3. Perlocutionary act – is concerned with what follows an utterance: the effect or ‘take-up’ of an illocutionary act. As Levinson puts it “the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of uttering sentence, such effects being special to the 13 (Levinson S.C. Speech Act theory: state of the art. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 13: 5-24. 1980.). 17

circumstances of utterance”. This is also generally known as the perlocutionary effect 14 . Austin gave the example of sentences like Shoot her! In appropriate circumstances this sentence can have the illocutionary force of ordering, urging or advising the addressee to shoot her, but the perlocutionary force of persuading, forcing, frightening, etc. the addressee into shooting her. Perlocutionary effects are less conventionally tied to linguistic forms and so have been of less interest to linguists. We know, for example, that people can recognize orders without obeying them. Furthermore, the locutionary act can be analysed into: 1. Phonetic act – the act of uttering certain noises 1. Phatic act – the act of uttering certain words 1. Rhetic act – the act of using words with some sense To sum up, Austin’s classification of linguistic acts may be presented in the following way: Act 1. Locution He said to me: You can’t do that . Act 2. Illocution He protested against my doing it. Act 3. Perlocution He pulled me up, checked me. Searle’s classification of Speech Acts. Since Austin’s original explorations of SAT there have been a number of works which attempt to systematize the approach. In particular, scholars have focused on the classification of possible types of speech acts. John R. Searle, an American philosopher, linguist and student of Austin, was chiefly preoccupied with examining illocutionary acts, devoting a lot of attention to their systematization and providing his own taxonomy of illocutionary speech acts. Searle not only presents the reader with those aspects of SAT defined by his teacher, but also draws constructive criticism of it. He points out that “(…) there is a persistent confusion between verbs and acts, not all the verbs are illocutionary 14 Schiffrin Deborah, Tannen Deborah, and Hamilton Heidi E. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers, 2001. 18

verbs, there is too much overlap of the categories, too much heterogeneity within the categories, many of the verbs listed in the categories don’t satisfy the definition given for the category and, most important, there is no consistent principle of classification.” 15 In addition, he develops his own taxonomy of illocutionary acts, specifying the rules by which we are able to distinguish one illocutionary act from another. In his “A classification of illocutionary acts”, Searle suggests twelve criteria which are crucial in differentiating illocutionary acts; they are as follows: 1. Illocutionary point . This is the attempt to make the addressee do something (when ordering), or in the case of a negative order, to make somebody stop doing something. The illocutionary point of a descriptive speech act would be that of representing reality. Considering two different speech acts: an ‘order’ and a ‘request’, having the same point, are distinguished by a difference in illocutionary force. 2. Direction of ‘fit’ . This deals with the relation between the word (language) and the world (reality). The fit can have one of two directions: • getting the words to match the world, e.g. assertions (so called word-to world direction of fit). In this case language is ‘fitted to’, or even ‘fit for’, the environment, as when describing a piece of scenery; • getting the world to match the words, e.g. promising, requests (world-to word direction of fit). Here, the world is ‘fitted’ to words, i.e. through the use of words, we make the world fit our language. 3. Expressed psychological state . The speaker expresses some attitude or state of mind by means of uttering the illocutionary act. A person cannot usually express a psychological state using a speech act (e.g. believing) without being in that particular psychological state. 15 ( Searle J.R. Indirect speech acts, in (eds) P. Cole & J.L. Morgan Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press, 1975. 19

4. Force . This may be described as the speaker’s involvement in what is uttered. If we compare, for instance, these two sentences I suggest that we go home now and I insist that we go home now , obviously a difference in their illocutionary force exists. 5. Social status . Any utterance must be placed within the context of the speaker‘s and hearer’s status in society in order to be properly understood. Interest . In any situation, people have different interests, and worry about different things. Therefore, the speech acts used in situations ought to reflect these interests and worries, e.g. condolences and congratulations (i.e. it would be inappropriate to congratulate somebody who has just lost a close relative). 7. Discourse-related functions . These refer to the context in which speech acts are being uttered, so that they may be ‘taken up’ correctly in relation to their function. 8. Content . This criterion enables us to separate out speech acts in accordance with what they are ‘about’: for example, in the dimension of time, past events cannot be used for predictions, only for statements and narrative acts. 9. Speech acts or speech act verbs . These concern differences between those acts that must always be speech acts, and those that might be, but need not be speech acts. In the case of ordering, an order need not be expressed by a speech act verb of ordering; but when it comes to institutionalized speech acts, the situation is different, a particular speech act verb is usually obligatory. 10. Social institutions and speech acts . These refer to dissimilarities between those acts that need extra-linguistic institutions for their performance and those that do not; e.g. blessing or excommunicating require a position within an extralinguistic institution, whereas there is no need for such extra-linguistic institutions when making a statement or promising. 11. Speech acts and performatives . Only certain speech acts can be said to have a performative character, i.e. the property of doing what they explicitly say. Not all illocutionary verbs are expressed by performative verbs, e.g. boasting, threatening. 12. Style . This criterion consists in the difference in the style of the illocutionary act. Most people claim that the way we say things is often more important than the contents of what is being said. 20

The twelve criteria discussed above aim at laying the groundwork for a better classification procedure. Searle, while allowing that there is a myriad of language particular speech acts proposed that all acts fall into five main categories: 1. Assertives – which commit the Speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition (paradigm cases: asserting, concluding, etc). 2. Directives – which are attempts by the Speaker to get the addressee to do something (paradigm cases: ordering, requesting, questioning). 3. Commissives – which commit the Speaker to some future course of action (paradigm cases: promising, threatening, offering). 4. Expressives – which express a psychological state, the attitude or feelings of the Speaker (paradigm cases: thanking, apologizing, welcoming, congratulating). 5. Declarations – which effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs and which tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (paradigm cases: excommunicating, declaring war, christening, marrying, firing from employment). In distinguishing these acts, Searle further developed Austin’s notion of FCs into a classification of conditions that must hold for a successful speech act. Searle distinguishes between propositional , preparatory , sincerity and essential conditions for an act. In a nutshell, we can describe them in the following way: content conditions define the type of meaning expressed by the propositional part of an utterance. 2. Preparatory conditions specify prerequisites to the performance of the speech act. 3. Sincerity conditions are obligatory for the speech act to be performed sincerely. 4. Essential conditions clarify what the speech act must ‘count as’. Request Propositional content – Future act A of H. Preparatory – H is able to do A. S believes H is able to do A. It is not obvious to both S and H that H will do A in the normal course of events of his own accord. Sincerity – S wants H to do A. Essential – Counts as an attempt to get H to do A. 21

where: H = Hearer S = Speaker A = future action Searle appears to be right in criticizing Austin for the deficiencies in his classification schema. To illustrate, the categories that Austin establishes are not mutually exclusive, as their criteria often overlap. There seems to be a rather general confusion between the notion of ‘speech acts’ and that of ‘speech act verbs’ in Austin’s work. As noted by Mey, “Searle is unhappy about the fact that Austin apparently does not see that there is a difference between speech acts and speech act verbs”. When evaluating Searle’s classification of speech acts, we notice that in many respects it resembles Austin’s. In addition, Searle devoted a lot of attention to all the different criteria that one could employ to establish a coherent and consistent taxonomy. Searle’s taxonomy “is more oriented towards the real world” and centres on the illocutionary aspects of language use. Within this system, Searle addressed possible intentions of speakers and also the desired actions of the utterances applying to various situations. Other scholars have suggested alternative classifications and different typologies, either trying to expand on or disagree with Searle’s. They maintain that there are different levels of Speech Acts and that the classifications are not as easy to identify as is suggested by Searle. They argue that it would be almost impossible to classify each and every utterance employing only the five types of speech act mentioned above. 1.3. Classification of Speech Acts: Direct and indirect speech acts During the early stages of speech acts studies, an observation was made that, for instance, illocutionary act of ordering can be realized not only by means of imperatives but also by interrogative sentences. Further investigations in this field, led Heringer to conceive the notion of indirect speech acts . In order to illustrate this idea, let us consider the following examples, as presented by Yule (2000: 54): 22

You wear a seat belt. (declarative) Do you wear a seat belt? (interrogative) Wear a seat belt! (imperative) We can easily recognize the relationship between the three structural forms mentioned above (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative functions they perform (statement, question, command / request). Next, Yule (2000: 54-55) divides speech acts into direct and indirect, and proceeds to explain that direct speech acts occur “whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function” and “whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.” 16 Therefore, a declarative sentence used to make a statement is an example of a direct speech act, and a declarative sentence used to make a request is an indirect speech act. Various structures can be used to accomplish the same basic function, for instance, Levinson enumerated a large number of ways in which we can utter a request and claims that “what people do with sentences seems quite unrestricted by the surface form (i.e. sentence-type) of the sentences uttered. Cohen also states that nearly each and every type of speech act can be realized by means of another act. Consequently, the number of possible interpretations of a given sentence, e.g. Go to London tomorrow! (it might be a command, instruction, advice, and many more), are numerous and difficult to assess, but cannot be indefinite. The question arises, whether such a classification (into direct and indirect speech acts) makes any sense. The answer seems to be yes. It appears so due to the fact that a considerable number of linguists, scholars and philosophers have tried to distinguish direct and indirect speech acts. However, there is still a lack of agreement among linguists on a common definition of indirect speech act. According to Leech, the notion of indirectness is gradable, and therefore, there is no need to distinguish direct and indirect as two opposed groups, since direct speech acts constitute those which are the least indirect. We should not, however, indulge in a detailed discussion of this matter because the idea of classifying speech acts into 16 Searle J.R. Indirect speech acts, in (eds) P. Cole & J.L. Morgan Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press, 1975. 23

direct and indirect has been widely accepted and practised, even when these two categories are not regarded as being in opposition. Another definition is proposed by Wiertlewski writes that speakers, while uttering indirect speech acts have something more on their minds than what is actually said; and that indirect speech acts are utterances which “break the connection” between the grammatical structure of the utterance and its illocutionary force of it. In other words, “the speaker means what the sentence means, but something else as well.”. We should not forget about Searle’s tremendous contribution to this field and his understanding of indirect acts. He described indirect speech acts as cases in which “one illocutionary act can be uttered to perform, in addition, another type of illocutionary act”. He called the former primary and the latter secondary illocutionary act. For instance, after uttering a sentence Can you reach the salt? a speaker considers it not merely as a question, but as a request to pass the salt. In this case the direct act is a question about the hearer’s ability to pass the salt (secondary illocutionary act). It could be answered by him /her saying yes and doing nothing. However, both interlocutors are aware that action is expected, and that what the speaker told the hearer was simply to pass the salt (primary illocutionary act), but the speaker did so indirectly. It seems that the meaning of utterances is in large part indirect, so it happens with the use of e.g. requests “(…) most usages are indirect. (…) the imperative is very rarely used to issue requests in English; instead we tend to employ sentences that only indirectly do requesting.”. If this is the case, then a question arises, namely, “How do I know that he has made a request when he only asked me a question about my abilities?” How are we to know if I’ll meet you tomorrow is a promise, a threat, or perhaps just an announcement? In order to solve this problem we ought to take a pragmatic approach. Searle postulates that in understanding indirect speech acts we bring together our knowledge of the following three elements, they are: - the felicity conditions of direct speech acts, - the context of the utterance, and principles of conversational cooperation. 24

As has already been pointed out in this unit, the felicity conditions deal with the speaker being in an appropriate situation to make the utterance. One cannot promise someone his / her bike, for instance, if the speaker does not possess one. The context of the utterance is the situation in which it is made. Context mostly helps us to understand how a particular utterance should be interpreted. The conversational principles constitute the base-line assumptions which speakers and hearers conventionally have about relevance, orderliness and truthfulness. “The process of combining these elements draws heavily on inference because much of what is meant is not explicitly stated. It is here that the work of speech acts theories links up with the more general approach of H. P. Grice and his interest in conversational implicatures ”. We might face the dilemma – Why are indirect speech acts used at all, given that they apparently create some difficulties in human communication? This issue has been dealt with by pragmalinguists. Some of them claim that by applying indirect speech acts we sound more polite. Lakoff following the ideas of Grice’s Cooperative Principle, presents his “logic of politeness” with its main requirement of being polite. Leech introduces a tact maxim aiming at preventing any conflicts. He also observes that the use of direct speech acts in the case of directives, e.g. request, may lead to hostile behavior. Therefore, he recommends employing indirect speech acts to make requests. Language use is not just an exercise in understanding as it is for example when we are learning to speak an unfamiliar foreign language. It is not used randomly and out of context, but often with a clear aim or as a focus for some further action. It is this context that will resolve for the participants what is an acceptable level of understanding. If a hearer is dissatisfied in some way with his mental model of what the speaker has said, he will ask for clarification, or query his understanding by rephrasing what has been said in his own words. Not only this, but it is a mistake to think that once an interpretation has been made that it is immutably fixed, and stored in the state it was originally conceived. 25

We do not keep a permanent mental representation of an utterance. We incorporate our interpretation and the various beliefs and knowledge attendant on this interpretation, as well as our understanding of the function of the utterance, into our mental model to inform an appropriate response, and to provide further interpretations of discourse later on. If evidence in later talk reveals that we have misunderstood something earlier on in the conversation, we will refine and update our model accordingly. A speaker does not form his utterances using the only possible set of words for the ‘correct’ communication of his ideas, but packages what he says in a way he believes the hearer is most likely to understand in the context of the discourse situation. If the speaker includes too much detail in his conversation then it becomes boring for the hearer or the hearer might become overloaded by too much information and so is unable to process it to make a ‘correct’ interpretation; too little information on the other hand, will lead to ambiguity. Speech is thus constantly balanced between too much and too little information. A speaker is always vying for a hearer’s attention and so must try to convey his message as simply as possible. Minimal specification is often the best strategy for speakers to follow. This is often the way that children behave in conversation because they tend to believe that others (especially adults) are already aware of all the background information necessary to decode their message. (In fact this belief in very young children extends to all behavior – they are incapable of deceit because of the assumption that the other person has complete knowledge of all that they themselves know.) It is interesting to note that minimal specification is often enough, and is easily expanded at need when extra information is required. This is negotiated between the participants in a conversation at the time the need for it occurs. If it becomes apparent that a hearer is unable to understand all that is said, the speaker can easily switch from a strategy of under-specification to that of over-specification (for example when a hearer’s background information is inadequate to follow the 26

references being made by the speaker, as in the case of an outsider joining a closely knit group of friends). Likewise, it is expected that the hearer will try to make sense of what he is hearing and co-operate in the process of communication. Sperber and Wilson claim that every utterance comes with a presumption of its own optimal relevance for the listener . This is evidently too strong an assertion; it seems obvious that there are some utterances that intrude on the hearer, and whose outcome is of sole benefit to the speaker (anyone who has been approached in the streets by Big Issue homeless magazine sellers will understand what this means). From the hearer’s point of view, there is no guarantee that, in the end, it will be in the hearer’s interests to attend to what the speaker says. Yet we do pay attention to each other when we speak (sometimes!). Brown says: It is not necessary to postulate a universal guarantee of relevance to the hearer as the motivation for a hearer paying attention to what a speaker says. All one needs to do is to look at the social aspects of communication to find a reason for a hearer’s attention. We can explain a hearer’s compliance to the demands of consideration of the speaker’s utterance by the general elements of co- operative behavior that govern all human interaction. We work together in life because in the end we as individuals will benefit. The principle of ‘if I listen to you now, you may listen to me later’ comes into play this is the fundamental basis of all co-operative activities. One also never knows when what we hear might be of some use. The view is often expressed in the literature that speakers take the active role in conversation while hearers are merely passive. Clark says: “All that counts in the end is the speaker’s meaning and the recovery of the speaker’s intentions in uttering the sentence”. This ignores the case when the hearer was originally the prime mover within a conversation, when it is the hearer who decides what information is most important 27

in interaction (because he himself has first elicited it). This is an important point for my thesis as it motivates the interpretation of speech acts based on prior speech acts. Overlooking the importance of both the speaker and the hearer (and only focusing on the speaker’s intentions) is as insufficient as trying to assume that the participants share common goals and contexts. Johnson-Laird points out the fallacy of common contexts (or mutual beliefs) for both speaker and hearer in conversation there are two, one for each participant 17 : …the notion of the context overlooks the fact that an utterance generally has at least two contexts: one for the speaker and one for the listener. The differences between them are not merely contingent, but… a crucial datum for communication. In fact, this fails fully to cover all the possibilities, for when there is a third observer present to hear the communication between the speaker and the recognized addressee, surely we must then add an extra dimension of context to the conversation. We can now see the various roles that people can take in a conversation. It will become important to our discussions later to have drawn the distinction between the different ‘current’ roles or the ‘statuses’ of participants within a conversation at the time of an utterance. People minimize the risk of miscommunication by judging how much information is needed by the hearer in order to be able to decode the message in context. So a speaker will constantly be deciding whether to maximize or minimize (using pronomialization or ellipsis for instance) the referents depending upon the status of focus for these referents. Participants in a conversation will also constantly check whether the message has been correctly conveyed. In spoken language the speaker includes information about how the hearer should treat the content of his utterance, and the hearer will repeatedly feedback reassurances that he has, in actual fact, received the message correctly. Mistakes in understanding are in this way often caught quickly and rectified. 17 Searle J.R. Indirect speech acts, in (eds) P. Cole & J.L. Morgan Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts New York: Academic Press, 1975. 28

There have been a number of studies of spontaneous speech used in dialogues. Spontaneous speech differs from read speech in that the speaker is often greatly influenced by the environment. Not only will a speaker adjust to his or her dialogue partner, but he or she may use their words and even sentence intonation. Dybkjaer noted that whilst collecting dialogues in a WoZ experiment, speakers tended to use the words which appeared in the description of the scenario. To avoid this problem, Dybkjaer designed two sets of experiments: one used a text-based description of the scenario and task, the other a graphical representation of the same tasks. The graphic-based experiments negated the priming effect, but paradoxically generated a smaller vocabulary than the text-based approach. In a similar way, system questions and responses can influence the style of language of the user. Schillo also tried to avoid lexical "priming" by using graphical icons to prompt user responses. Schillo found a great deal of planning was required to "engineer" an icon-based dialogue and he had to resort to language for anything beyond basic functions. A large proportion of spontaneous speech is ungrammatical, and yet it is astoundingly resilient to any arising errors. Any misunderstandings which arise, termed communication deviations by Taleb (1996), are resolved within 6 turns on average. Fraser notes that communication is inherently ‘messy’, and even goes as far as saying that messy communication may be a natural phenomenon and perhaps necessary for a pleasant, natural dialogue. At any stage in a dialogue, one participant has the initiative of the conversation. For example, when agent A asks agent B a question, agent A has the initiative. When agent B answers, however, agent A still has the initiative, i.e. has effective control of the conversation. Now, if agent B then asks a question of A, B takes control of the dialogue or takes the initiative. In a sense, the initiative is a function of the roles of the dialogue participants. Dialogue systems may allow the user or the system of take the initiative, or may allow both to switch roles as required. 29

Menu navigation, system-orientated question and answer systems where the system has the initiative throughout the dialogue are the simplest to model. In this case, the user must select between a small numbers of well-defined options. Where the user takes the initiative in systems such as command and control and database query systems more complex modeling strategies are needed. Although the range of tasks to be performed may be low, the user has greater expressibility and freedom of choice. The hardest dialogues to model, by far, are those where the initiative can be taken by either the system or the user at various points in the dialogue. As noted by Eckert (1996), mixed initiative systems involve dialogues which approach the intricacies of conversational turn-taking, utilizing strategies which determine when, for example, the system can take the initiative away from the user. For systems which use speech recognition, the ability to confirm or clarify given information is essential, hence system-orientated or mixed initiative must exist. A dialogue taxonomy. Dahlback (1995) argues for a classification or taxonomy of dialogues. Comparisons of different dialogue management techniques or computational theories of discourse are difficult when dialogues have differing features. If dialogue systems could be classified according to some taxonomy, then any algorithms developed could be applied to different systems with comparable results. Dahlback's taxonomy is based on work by Rubin (1980) and Clark (1985). It distinguishes four main dimensions: 1. Type of agent 2. Channel 3. Task type 4. Shared knowledge The type of agent, either human or computer greatly influences the style of spoken language used. Work by Guindon and Kennedy et al. shows that when addressing a computer, human utterances are shorter and have a smaller lexical variation with a minimal number of pronouns. The channel of communication involves many different aspects. The most obvious is the modality of the channel which may be either written or spoken; the 30

distinctions between the two have been explored above. Other aspects of the channel include the style of interaction (influencing for example, the anaphor-antecedent relations), spatial and temporal commonality, concreteness of referents (are the objects and events referred to visually present or not) and separability of characters, all of which influence the dialogue structure and style. As noted above, the dialogue structure is influenced by the structure of the task. The number of different tasks managed also affects the dialogue structure. Unsurprisingly, there are three types of information which can be used to infer the common ground between speaker and listener: shared perceptual, linguistic and cultural knowledge. The first two types are the easiest to model. When both participants are aware of physical or visual objects then they share perceptual knowledge. Linguistic knowledge is the shared knowledge of the dialogue up to that point. Cultural knowledge is more difficult to model since it depends on knowledge that is obtained from the participant’s community. Approaches to dialogue management. A dialogue manager must model to a certain extent two aspects of the interaction between the user and the machine. The first of these is the interaction history which allows user’s sentences to be interpreted according to the current context. The context may also deal with phenomena such as anaphora and ellipsis. The second aspect is a model of the interaction, controlling the strategy adopted by the system to control the dialogue structure. This strategy also influences the role of initiative in the dialogue. There are many approaches to the design of dialogue management systems. Typically, a system will consist of the components in Figure 1, below. Text or transcribed speech is input into the system which is parsed and semantic information deduced by the natural language components. The dialogue manager then coordinates between the other components in order to fully understand all the implications of the input in the current context, resolving conflicts, ambiguities and dealing with anaphora and ellipsis. Multi-modal systems can receive from and output too many different devices. The response generation module generates a response based on the output of the dialogue manager, usually as a natural language text to be read out by the 31

speech synthesizer, but may also generate graphical or other output. Whilst the system may output text to be converted into speech, it may also include visual output. Each device needs a level of abstraction, a driver, which interprets between the actual device and the dialogue manager, so that all input and output can be modeled with the same mechanisms. Conversation and Cultural Context (Ethnography of Speaking). Ethnographers of communication are primarily concerned with the analysis of patterns of communicative behavior, by observing how participants use language. Their aim is to try to discover how members of a specific culture perceive their experiences and then transmit their interpretations of these. Hymes developed a schema for breaking down the constituents of a context into units of analysis, which he called the speech events in which the language happens. He listed these in a classificatory grid, called a SPEAKING grid (because of the letters used to identify the different components). S Setting, scene Temporal and physical circumstances, subjective definition of an occasion P Participant Speaker/sender/addressor/hearer/receiver/audience/ addressee E Ends Purposes and goals, outcomes A Act sequence Message form and content K Key Tone, manner I Instrumentalities Channel (verbal, non-verbal, physical forms of speech drawn from community repertoire) N Norms of interaction and interpretation Specific properties attached to speaking, interpretation of norms within cultural belief system G Genre Textual categories This grid can be used to analyze a local cultural taxonomy of what Hymes calls ‘units’ of communication. The largest unit is the speech situation (the social setting in which the conversation takes place, say a meeting); the next size of unit is the speech event or 32

activity (say, the conversation or debate that is taking place within the meeting); and the smallest unit is the speech act (say, a disagreement within the discussion within the meeting). Although Hymes does not explicitly equate the smallest units of his analysis of conversation to Searle’s illocutionary acts, some of the examples he gives merit the classification of speech act, although others, like ‘greeting’ (Searle counted these types of act as Expressives), do not, and in fact appear to belong to a larger unit than the speech act, which is unaccounted for by Hymes. Hymes recognizes that, although all units of communication are important for the interpretation of an utterance, it is the smallest unit, the speech act, which handles the basic management of a conversation: Discourse may be viewed in terms of acts both syntagmatically and paradigmatically: i.e., both as a sequence of speech acts and in terms of classes of speech acts among which choice has been made at given points. Although Hymes’s approach seems a very vague and cluttered way of representing a speech situation, it is significant because it was one of the first to try to include some details of the context of the speech situation to bear on studies of language understanding. Hymes’s work is not of direct relevance, as it is predominantly concerned with cultural variations in language. Tannen’s work on the characterization and identification of different ‘styles’ of conversation, follows on from that of Hymes and Gumperz. She is interested in how we establish and develop a rapport with each other in conversation. She concentrates on looking at the overall characteristics and stylistic devices we use in order to gain mutual understanding in spoken conversation, rather than placing importance on the sequential organization that we use in order to do this. Tannen identifies her strategies for the creation of rapport between speakers, with Lakoff’s ‘Rules of Rapport’: 1. Don’t impose (Distance). 2. Give options (Deference). 3. Be friendly (Camaraderie). (Lakoff in Tannen 1984:11) 33

She analyses conversation according to a number of different features, and the rules that govern them, among which are: topic choice and management, pacing of conversation, tactics for co-operative completion and feedback, narrative strategies and use of pitch, intonation and quality of voice. She specifies various speaker strategies in terms of the preferences and conventions they use to convey certain impressions by the manipulation of the features listed above. For example, Tannen gives the preferences for ‘narrative strategies’ as follows: 1. Tell more stories. 2. Tell stories in rounds. 3. Prefer internal evaluation (i.e. point of a story is dramatized rather than exicalised). Tannen’s analysis of conversation as a variety of interactive styles as determined by the social group activity in which we are currently participating highlights the extent to which language use is anchored to social and cultural context. Tannen also sees these varying styles as indicating differing but equal modes of communication. Cameron and Eggins and Slade however reject this claim and argue that there are some conversational styles and strategies that can seriously disadvantage and subordinate a speaker within a conversation. While Tannen’s work is useful for showing how important variation is in conversational behavior, not all her observations can be applied generically to all types of conversation. The conclusion of the chapter I In this chapter we have reviewed those speech act theories, which are relevant to the present study. Obviously, the above presentation does not cover all aspects of Speech Act Theory. Nonetheless, the most important problems have been examined. In particular, we have discussed the following: - distinction between performative and non-performative (constative) utterances; - distinction of illocutionary acts from other types of speech acts; 34

- proposed general classification system of speech acts (from their functional point of view); - conditions concerning the appropriateness of use, i.e. felicity conditions; - the nature of indirectness; - classification into direct and indirect speech acts. As may be noted, the nature of indirect speech acts is difficult to describe and analyze. I have indicated that in order to interpret and understand speech acts correctly (especially indirect speech acts), we have to peruse some more works concerned with the notion of politeness, since indirectness is a crucial element of it, especially in the case of directives. In the present chapter I have considered and analyzed the main concepts and questions concerning the problems of notions ‘discourse analysis’ and ‘speech acts events’. We have arrived at the following conclusion. So, the analysis of discourse is the analysis of the domain of ‘statements’ that is, of texts, and of utterances as constituent elements of texts. But that does not mean a concern with detail analysis of texts the concern is more a matter of discerning the rules which ‘govern’ bodies of texts and utterances. The discourse is used abstractly (as an abstract noun) for the domain of statements, and concretely as a count noun (a discourse, several discourses) for groups of statements or for the regulated practice (the rules) which govern such a group of statements. We see discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the mental world of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world. Particular aspects of the world may be represented differently, so we are generally in the position of having to consider the relationship between different discourses. Different discourses are different perspectives on the world, and they are associated with the different relations people have to the world, which in turn depends on their positions in the world, their social and personal identities, and the social relationships in which they stand to other people. 35

Discourses not only represent the world as it is (or rather is seen to be), they are also projective, imaginaries, representing possible worlds which are different from the actual world, and tied in to projects to change the world in particular directions. The relationships between different discourses are one element of the relationships between different people they may complement one another, compete with one another, one can dominate others, and so forth. Discourses constitute part of the resources which people deploy in relating to one another keeping separate from one another, cooperating, competing, dominating and in seeking to change the ways in which they relate to one another (Fairclough, 2004). To conclude, as is evident from the work presented, the nature and structure of the discourse event and speech event are complex due to the interrelationships among the par ticipants and their aims, their expectations and assumptions, the ways in which meaning emerges, and the way participants represent those mean ings in their languages. Studying discourse, its phenomena and speech event among and between the participants and the interpreter explicates how the inter preting process works and how the interpreter works within it. In today’s linguistics the studies of discourse analysis and speech events seem envisaging further development from different scientific positions: discourse practice, discourse technologies, geosemiotics, process of globalization and others. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN NATURAL SPONTANEOUS DISCOURSE 2.1 The notion of a request and its classification Let me begin discussion by defining the communicative act of requesting. A request is an illocutionary act where the Speaker (S) tells the Hearer (H) that he or she wants H to carry out an act which is for the benefit of S. S can either request for 36

nonverbal goods and services (e.g. a request for an object, an action or some other type of service) or request for verbal goods and services (e.g. a request for information). The requested action usually takes place post-utterance, either in the immediate future ( requests-now ) or later on in the course of action ( requests-then ). Thus a request is characterized as pre-event (as opposed to post-event e.g. apology, complaint). When asking a favor of somebody S imposes some action on H. Additionally, he or she does it at the cost of H. Therefore, a request is viewed as an impositive act. As has already been mentioned a request belongs to a group of face- threatening acts , since S while making a request exercises power or direct control over H’s behavior, and so H’s negative face is being threatened. However, S may also be “in danger” of losing face because H can refuse to comply with S’s wish. There are a number of speech acts like orders, commands, suggestions, advice, etc. that together with requests fall into the group of directives. Linguists who defined the illocutionary forces of these speech acts often failed to see that these speech acts should be subsumed under two different subclasses, depending on whether S expects compliance or allows non-compliance. In English Conversation, Tsui argues that the speech acts mentioned above fall into two categories, namely directives (orders, commands, and instructs) and requestives (requests, inviting, asking for permission, and offer), and that these two categories differ considerably. A similar division can be noticed in Wierzbicka’s Dictionary of Speech Act Verbs. She places verbs such as order, command, tell,direct, instruct and require within one class called the order group , and verbs like ask,request, beg, implore, plead and appeal in a second class called the ask group. Tsui points out the most important differences between requestives (commonly referred to as a ‘request’) and directives (commonly referred to as an ‘order’). These are as follows: a request gives the addressee the choice of complying or not complying, whilst an order does not; a request does not assume that the addressee will cooperate, whereas an order does. Request allows for the possibility of refusal. A request can be granted or refused by H. According to Green, “it is advisable for the addressee to grant the speaker’s request, but in the case of refusal 37

the speaker will not be enraged.” Next, Searle claims that an order differs from a request in that the former has the special preparatory condition that S has to be in a position of authority over the addressee; a request is generally thought of as polite ways of getting the addressee to do something. “The speaker does not believe the action to be beneficial to the hearer”, contrary to advices, suggestions or offers. Requests are characterized grammatically by “a level or only slightly falling intonation, an ability to occur with please in final position”. 18 As already stated in Chapter 1 of this study, Searle in Speech Acts, elaborated on Austin’s notion of felicity conditions (FCs), and presented a classification of the conditions that must hold for a successful speech act. On the basis of those conditions, the Speech Act of Requesting can be defined in the following way: TYPES OF RULE REQUEST 1. Propositional content Future act A of H 2. Preparatory 1. H is able to do A. S believes H is able to do A. 2. It is not obvious to both S and H that H will do A in the normal course of events on his own accord. 3. Sincerity S wants H to do A 4. Essential Counts as an attempt to get H to do A. Where: S = speaker H = addressee A = a future act of H desired by S Another proposal accounting for Request as a Speech Act (SARq) was suggested by Oleksy 19 . He claims that SARq can be defined as a communicative category via FCs and he puts forth FCs for SARq, which are deeply rooted in 18 Aijmer, K. (1997). “Epistemic modality as a discourse phenomenon: a Swedish-English cross-language perspective”. In: U. Fries et al. (eds.). From Ælfric to the New York Times. Studies in English Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi. Pp. 215- 226. 19 Oleksy, W. (1983). “Pragmatic Equivalence in Contrastive Studies: Requests in Polish and English”. In: K. Sajavaara (ed.). Cross-Language Analysisand Second Language Acquisition 2 . No 10.. 38

Searle’s FCs set. However, there are differences between Searle’s FCs for SARq and Oleksy’s FCs, these being, the inclusion of the cultural and contextual aspects, namely, a) S believes A is acceptable in a socio-cultural context, and b) S believes a request is acceptable in the communicative context, in which S and H perform. This observation is of vital importance to the present study since the choice of the linguistic realization of a particular SA depends on a variety of situational and social factors, which originate in, are associated with, and are acceptable in a given culture. It is the broad repertoire of requests in English and Polish, their classification and the contrastive analysis which allow the establishing of similarities and differences between the English and Polish native speakers’ request realization patterns. Before proceeding to a detailed examination of the realization of requests in the two languages, the units for the analysis will be presented as defined by Blum- Kulka and Olshtain. 20 The unit of analysis may occur in the form of an utterance or a sequence of utterances and it may include the following segments: the Head Act and the peripheral elements . The Head Act is that part of the sequence which may serve to realize the act independently of other elements; it can occur on its own and still, without any peripheral elements, convey the request successfully. However, it frequently happens that the Head Act is either preceded and/or followed by peripheral elements (supporting moves), which can mitigate or aggravate its force, yet the Head Act’s propositional content remains unchanged. Head Acts vary in terms of 1) strategy type (this aspect will be presented in detail in Section 4.2), and 2) perspective. The peripheral elements , it will be recalled, are employed in order to mitigate or aggravate the request. These elements include: alerters , whose functions are to alert H’s attention to the upcoming speech act (i.e. address forms such as title/role, surname, first name, nickname, endearment, offensive term, pronoun, and attention getters); and - other external modifiers 21 , for instance: 20 Blum-Kulka, Sh., J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.). (1989). Cross-culturalPragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. and Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 273-294). 39

preparators – S prepares his or her request carefully in order for H to fulfill his or her wish. These devices are used in cases where it is not obvious that H will comply with the request, e.g. in non-intimate situations, among strangers, etc. To illustrate: 1) There is something I’d like to ask you. 2) May I disturb you for a moment? disarmers – S is aware of potential imposition a request may cause, therefore, he or she tries to anticipate possible refusal, for example: 3) I hope I’m not disturbing you but … sweeteners – S can diminish the imposition involved by flattering or expressing exaggerated appreciation of H’s ability to comply with the request, for instance: 4) You have excellent taste in clothes. Can I borrow this dress? supportive reasons – S gives his or her specific reasons for making a request. Presenting an explanation or a justification may influence H to comply with the request more willingly. It helps H to understand S’s motivation behind asking a favor. Some examples are: 5) Would you mind cleaning the kitchen today? I’ve got so many things to do. 6. Would it be possible to move your car a bit? It’s blocking the gate. cost minimizing – in order to convince H that it is worthwhile to comply with the request, S can mention factors that will minimize any possible cost to H, for instance: 7) Would you mind giving me a lift to the train station? I’ll pay for the petrol. In addition to these external modifications of requests, there also exist internal modifications , i.e. devices which operate within the Head Act. Their function is to soften or increase the impact a request strategy is likely to have on H. These devices are referred to as modality markers , and they can be divided into: those which decrease the impact of a request syntactic downgraders (e.g. conditional, interrogatives , past tense , negation , tag questions , conditional clause , embedding , ing-form ), lexical/phrasal downgraders (e.g. politeness marker , 21 Edmondson, 1981; Edmondson and House, 1981; House and Kasper, 1981, and Faerch and Kasper, 1989; Trosborg, 1995: 209- 219. 40

consultative device , downtoner , understatement , hedge , hesitator , interpersonal marker ), and those which, on the other hand, intensify the force of a request upgraders (e.g. adverbial intensifier , commitment upgrader , lexical intensification ). To illustrate the internal modification devices , examples of requests have been provided below. Syntactic downgraders: Conditional, e.g.: 8) Could I use the telephone? Interrogatives , e.g.: 9) Will you close the window, please ? Past tense , e.g.: 10) I wanted to ask you for a loan. Negation , e.g.: 11) Can’t you wait for a moment, please? Tag questions , e.g.: 12) Hand me the pen, will you ? Conditional clause , e.g.: 13) I would be very grateful if you would make the arrangementsfor me. Embedding , e.g.: 14) I wonder if you could help me. 15) I hope you can help me. 16) I thought that maybe you wouldn’t mind helping me.Ing-form , e.g.: 17) I was wondering if you could help me. Lexical / phrasal downgraders: Politeness marker , e.g.: 18) Could you close the door, please. Consultative device , e.g.: 19) Would you mind helping me? Downtoner – e.g. just, simply, perhaps, possibly, rather ; 20) Perhaps you could give us a hand. 41

Understatement – e.g. a little bit, a second, not very much ; 21) Can I have a little bit of that cake? Hedge – e.g. kind of, sort of, somehow, and so on, more or less ; 22) Could you somehow find some time to visit me next week?Hesitator , e.g.: 23) I er, erm – I wonder if you’d er … Interpersonal marker – e.g. you know, you see, I mean – cajolers and others – appealers e.g. right? okay? 24) Could you pass the glass, okay ? Diminutive, e.g.: mamuś (Polish) = mummy (English) Upgraders: Adverbial intensifier – e.g. such, so, very, quite, really, terribly, awfully, absolutely, etc. 25) You really must come and see me next week. Commitment upgrader – e.g. I’m sure, I’m certain, I’m positive,surely, certainly, obviously, etc. 26) I’m absolutely positive that you’ll lend me your car. Lexical intensification , e.g.: 27) You’d be such a darling if you’d give me a hand in the kitchen. 28) Get the hell out of here. Time intensifier, e.g. immediately, now, etc. Politeness and indirectness in requests As Yule points out, one of the most common kinds of indirect speech acts in English has the form of an interrogative, but is, in fact, understood as a request and not used to ask a question, e.g.: Could you pass the salt? Would you open the window? There is a typical pattern in English which seemingly concerns H’s assumed ability ( Can you...? Could you...? ) or future likelihood with regard to doing something ( Will you...? Would you...? ), but normally counts as a request to do that thing. 42

The occurrence of the imperative in requests is not preferred in many languages, including English and Uzbek, despite its status as the ‘genuine’ expression of the speech act ‘request’. Most usages of requests are indirect whilst “imperatives are rarely used to command or request”. This is connected with the fact that indirect speech acts are usually associated with greater politeness in both English and Uzbek than direct speech acts. However, there is “no linear relationship between indirectness and politeness”, which means that indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness. On the other hand, “indirect illocutions tend to be more polite a) because they increase the degree of optionality, and b) because the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its force tends to be”. Making use of previous request patterns, we arranged them into the following nine categories: DESCRIPTION OF THE CATEGORY EXAMPLES 1. Mood Derivable Clean up the kitchen. 2. Performative Leave me alone. 3. Hedged Performative I’m asking you to move your car. 4. Obligation Statement I would like you to give a lecture a week earlier. 5. Want Statement You’ll have to move your car. 6. Suggestory Formulae I want you to move your car. 7. Query Preparatory How about cleaning up? 8. Strong Hints Why don’t you come and clean up the messyou made last night? 9. Mild Hints Could you clean up the mess in the kitchen? The requests types which are regarded as the most direct are Mood Derivables (imperatives) and Performatives , that is to say, “the ones in which requestive force is either marked syntactically, or indicated explicitly”. Other strategies, like Obligation and Want Statement and Suggestory Formulae , count as requests by social convention. 43

2.2. Contrastive analysis of English and Uzbek Requests There is a considerable range of cross-cultural researches on the linguistic and communicative strategies of the Speech Act of Requesting. In this study, some observations as regards lexical-syntactic repertoires of requests in English and Uzbek language will be incorporated. A total of nine request strategies with varying lexical-syntactic structures of requesting formulas and patterns were grouped into three major categories according to their level of directness. By a request strategy we understand “the obligatory choice of the level of directness by which the Request is realized”. Directness means the degree to which S’s illocutionary intent is apparent from the locution. Furthermore, while directness is considered to be related to politeness, it is not coextensive with it. I go along with Brown (1995) who argues for a theory of adequate understanding rather than correct understanding . She claims that to insist on merely adequate interpretation and on the ‘riskiness’ of language comprehension is not to say that one cannot ever interpret what someone says ‘correctly’. After all, we can and do communicate with each other successfully for the majority of the time. Many utterances are formulated in a conventional or ‘formulaic’ manner using conventional forms of expression and phrasing in similar frames of context, so our interpretation is quick and apparently seamless. Extended education, learning and training help us acquire this conventional knowledge and apply it in context. Even so, there is not always a simple solution to an utterance’s interpretation; often there are multiple and changing interpretations, the understanding of which is in some cases only partial or incomplete. In these circumstances we make do with the ‘best fit’ interpretations or ask for more information. Direct Level – the most direct, explicit level, which is realized by requests syntactically marked as such, for example, imperatives, or by other verbal means that name the act as a request, for instance, performatives (Austin, 1962) and hedged performatives (Fraser, 1975). 2. Conventionally Indirect Level – the act is realized by reference to contextual preconditions necessary for its performance, as conventionalized in a given 44

language. These strategies are commonly referred to as indirect speech acts in speech act literature since Searle. 3. Non-conventional Indirect Level – the open-ended group of indirect strategies (hints) that realize the request either by partial reference to object or element needed for the implementation of the act or by reliance on contextual clues. A combination of levels of directness and strategy types are elaborated in the Table The request strategies in the Table below are ordered in accordance with decreasing degree of directness. They are mutually exclusive, i.e. the Head Act cannot be realized through more than one specific request strategy. Level of directness Strategy type Examples Direct 1. Mood Derivable : where the grammatical mood of the verb determines its illocutionary force as a request, e.g. the imperative. Close the door. 2. Explicit Performatives : where the illocutionary intent of the utterance is explicitly named. I’m asking you to close the door. 3. Hedged Performatives : where the naming of the illocutionary force is modified by hedging expressions. I would like to ask you to close the door. I must ask you to close the door. 4. Obligation Statements : where the illocutionary point is directly derivable from the semantic meaning of the locution. You should/will have to close the door. Want Statements : where the utterance expresses S’s desire, intention that H carries out the act. I want you to close the door. Conventionally Indirect 6. Suggestory Formulae : where the utterance contains a suggestion to do A. Why don’t you close the 45

door? Non- conventionally Indirect 8. Strong Hint : where the utterance contains partial reference to object or elements needed to implement the act. The door is open. 9. Mild Hint : where no reference is made to the request proper (or any of its elements) but interpretation is possible from the context. There is a draught in here. On the basis of available linguistic and the empirical cross-cultural studies carried out by the aforementioned linguists, we shall attempt to organize and compare request strategies in English and Uzbek. There exists a wide repertoire of requests in both languages under examination. I will not attempt to present the full range of requests available in both languages. Direct Level A requester who wishes to make explicit the illocutionary point of his or her request can use an imperative or a performative statement. If the requester chooses to employ a modal verb expressing obligation or necessity, then the request is considered by linguists to be of a weaker, less imposing nature. Mood Derivable Searle claims: “(…) ordinary conversational requirements of politeness normally make it awkward to issue flat imperative sentences (e.g. Leave my room ) or explicit performatives (e.g. I order you to leave the room ), and we therefore seek to find indirect means to our illocutionary ends (e.g. I wonder if you would mind leaving the room ).” Similarly, according to Trosborg, “the imperative is the grammatical form directly signaling that the utterance is an order.” In addition, when modified it is authoritative and must by obeyed. Sifianou also notices that imperatives are constructions considered by some linguists, such as Lakoff or Leech to be reserved for commands and instructions, and therefore inappropriate for making requests. This view, however, has been questioned by some scholars (e.g. Sifianou, Wierzbicka) While Lakoff’s and Leech’s view might apply to the English norms of 46

politeness, it does not constitute a universal principle of polite linguistic realizations. 1 . Imperatives (for instance: Leave me alone or Clean up this mess, please ) do perform the function of requests. According to Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, this form of expressing a request is called Mood Derivable (MD), as the grammatical mood of the verb in the utterance indicates its illocutionary force as a request. Additionally, the use of tags (De Devitiis) and/or the politeness marker please makes the request more polite, for example: Close the door, please. Close the door, will you Another linguist, Olga Kunst-Gnamuš points out that “...the evaluation of the politeness of a request expressed in the imperative form depends on the evaluation on the cost and benefit scale stemming from the required act (...).” Briefly speaking, we can use a ‘bald’ imperative if what we utter is beneficial to the addressee (e.g. Have some more tea ), contrary to e.g. Wash the dishes , which imposes a hardship on H. She draws the conclusion that “requests to the hearer may be expressed directly in the imperative form without being considered impolite”. There are some factors that may have a strong influence on our use of requests in the form of imperatives, namely the relationship and the social distance between S and H. Yet the circumstances may force us to use a ‘bald’ imperative, i.e. in situations involving an emergency, for instance, if we discover that there is a bomb in the car, we might yell at the passengers: Get out of here, quick! Direct requests are typically employed when compliance is anticipated, either due to the requester being superior in rank to the requestee, or because the favor asked carries a low degree of imposition. In a family situation, for instance, ‘bald’ imperatives seem to be frequent (e.g. Pass the salt ). As previously stated when the request is to the addressee’s benefit, we are more likely to say, for example, Help yourself to some more cake . According to Sifianou, imperatives also appear in cases of physical distance and power 47

difference, in the former case because efficiency seems to be more important and in the latter because face redress is not necessary. As far as the Uzbek language is concerned, imperatives perform various functions: they may not only express orders or commands, but also requests. The phonetic form of requests is generally characterized by a soft tone and a prolonged vowel or syllable. To illustrate, let us consider these two sentences: деразани ёпинг ( и pronounced as / и :/) While it may be questionable whether the former is actually a request or an order, the latter one is undoubtedly a request. Uzbek imperatives can be made more polite by the use of the name, for instance, Лола ойнани ёпинг tends to be more polite than Дераза ни ёпинг . What is more, some lexical/phrasal downgraders , such as appealers or in particular they decrease the impact of a request, for example: Китобни узатиб юборинг илтимос ? Китобни олиб беролмайсизми? When discussing the degree of politeness, we should remember the importance of the modification used in these constructions in both the languages under examination. From the theoretical point of view, the request proper may be separated from other elements, which mitigate the illocutionary force of a request, yet in actual encounters they usually occur and function together. A very interesting and detailed cross-cultural analysis of the lexical-syntactic structures of formulae and patterns of English and Uzbek requests and invitations needs to be presented and discussed by linguists. We grouped requests into three categories, namely: 1) Direct Orders , 2) “ Embedded” Orders , and 3) Conventionally Indirect Requests and Invitations. The first category corresponds to MD, since Direct Orders “ask in the most direct way for a performance of an action”. On the basis of the research carried out, it is stated that there are many differences between English and Uzbek as regards the 48

lexical-syntactic structure, frequency of occurrence (i.e. this type of request prevails in Uzbek) and the use of Direct Orders. Within Direct Orders , we can distinguish several patterns of typical request in both languages in question, they are as follows: Basic Verb Form Imperative – is almost always followed or preceded by the politeness marker (PM) – please which softens the imposition. In the case of absence of PM, the strength of the illocutionary force increases. Examples correspond to Uzbek Explicit Imperatives Proper and Infinitives respectively. Эшикни очинг илтимос . Open the door please. Эшикни очманг Don’t open the door! 2. Passive Imperatives – in these formal but polite requests, addressed to an anonymous H the PM kindly and/or the verb request (in the passive voice) may be used. This formula partly corresponds to Uzbek Passive Imperative with the PM. An example is given below: Passengers are kindly requested not to smoke during the flight. In addition, expressions such as be requested and PM kindly enhance the effect of formality here, but do not reduce the strength of the illocutionary force of a request. 3. Let- Imperatives – in English the lexical-syntactic structure determines the illocutionary force of this type of a request. Thus, there are Let- Imperatives with varying degree of illocutionary force ranging from the very strong, such as: Let the cat out! Don’t let her go! to those with weaker illocutionary force , this being achieved by employing different types of the form of address, for instance: Let’s do your homework now! Let Mary stay with us for this weekend, please. Uzbek -Imperatives, despite some lexical-syntactic similarities, are not exact equivalents of the English Let -Imperatives. As far as these constructions are concerned, two major differences between English and Uzbek are: 1) the strength of the illocutionary force, i.e. in Uzbek the 49

Imperatives constitute a stronger imposition of S’s will than the Let- Imperatives in English; 2) the perspective, i.e. in English both the H-oriented, and the inclusive (S and H oriented perspective) can be realized, whereas in Uzbek only the S oriented perspective is present. 4. Elliptical Imperatives – they are characterized by the same strength of the situation-bound illocutionary force and occur in the same kinds of social situations (i.e. in service encounters) in both English and Uzbek. Some English examples include: A glass of water, please! At the Hilton! - Uzbek data : 1. Infinitives – have the strongest illocutionary force among all kinds of Direct Orders , contain infinitive forms of verbs as their core. They occur in situations where power distance is great and in addition, the request is to show disrespect or rudeness. They can also indicate the S’s negative attitude towards his or her interlocutor, for example: Бу ерда баланд овозда гапириш мумкин эмас ! By adding PM Infinitives can be made more polite, for instance: Бу ерда баланд овозда гапирилмасин! Such requests sound neutral and polite; they are used in formal situations, when talking to subordinates, anonymous interlocutors or strangers in offices e.g. asking to provide some particular service. Another variation of an Infinitive with PM is Passive Imperative. Such a request may be used in formal oral announcements addressed to a wide audience, to illustrate: Томоша вақтида қўл телефонларидан фойдаланмаслик сўралади. 2. Explicit Imperatives Proper – have an imperative verb as their core, often negated, which is applied to specify the request. The verb may be used in either the second person or plural. Explicit Imperatives Proper are likely to be used “when the Hearer is a junior, a close friend of a rather similar age and status or an inferior, and 50

the situation is informal, half-formal or even formal with an asymmetrical relationship.” 3 . Elliptical Imperatives – are employed to request H to carry out an act, not by means of an explicitly present verb but with a noun or adverbial. Thanks to the situational context and shared knowledge it is possible to understand what is to be performed. In general, Elliptical Imperatives imply a large power distance between S and H, although in some situations the illocutionary force may be weakened. Four types of social encounter were enumerated which allow for the non-power marked use of such structures, namely: 1) transactional or service relations in restaurants, shops (presence of the PM please or the term of address); 2) high solidarity networks among e.g. friends or a team at work; 3) work under time pressure; 4) informal encounters where the S gives adverbials to define the place or time of the meeting. Explicit Performatives Requests of this sort the illocutionary intent is explicitly named by S by means of a relevant illocutionary verb. According to Trosborg (1995: 203), “the inclusion of a performative verb conveying requestive intent, e.g. ask, request, order, command , etc. explicitly marks the utterance as an order.” She also claims that such utterances are very direct and usually authoritative. For Lubecka (2000) Explicit Performative constitutes the second group of requests which she calls Embedded Orders. She is of the opinion that Direct Orders differ from Embedded Orders in the way that the latter is able to “modify the illocutionary force of the request by the choice of the embedding device”. Embedding, as explained by Lubecka (2000: 91), “consists in preceding an order proper by a modifying segment whose role is to modulate the illocutionary force of a given request by means of either a lexico-syntactic device (e.g. a main clause with a performative or tentative verb ) or a lexical device (e.g. a politeness marker).” As regards the structure of such a request, it is composed of a main and a sub-clause. The verb in the main clause is used in the first person 51

singular or plural. S employs the personal pronouns I/we (E), ja/my (P), and the personal pronouns you (E), cię/was (P), or a proper term of address to address H. The sub-clause denotes the kind of act which is to be performed by H. Although explicit performatives, as originally defined by Austin ought to be used in indicative active in the Simple Present, they can also appear in the Simple Past or Continuous Tenses in English, and the Present or the Past Tense in Polish. According to Lubecka (2000: 92), three kinds of Embedded Orders can be distinguished with regard to the nature of the performative verb applied in a request, namely: 1) Embedded Orders with a Performative Verb - carrying a strong illocutionary force, e.g. order (Eng), буйруқ (Uz); - carrying a weak illocutionary force, e.g. beg, ask (Eng), илтимос, майлими? (Uz). Some examples: I’m ordering you that you should not leave me now! I beg you to forgive me! The difference between the English and Uzbek language lies in the fact that Uzbek speakers have a wider choice of possible lexical-syntactic realizations of request than English speakers. 2) Embedded Orders with a Tentative Verb (e.g. hope, believe, think, wonder, wonder (Eng) and умид қилмоқ, ишонмоқ, ўйламоқ, ҳайрон бўлмоқ, ҳайратланмоқ (Uzbek), for instance: I hope that you will come to our party. I wonder if I could use your car tonight. Умид қиламанки сиз бизнинг зиёфатимизга келасиз . Бугун кечга машинангизни олиб турсам нима дейсиз . Hedged Performatives According to Fraser (1975), Hedged Performatives have the general form of requests realized by means of explicit performatives. However, they differ from the corresponding performative sentences in that they contain some modal verbs (e.g. must, will, would, have to or verbs expressing intention (e.g. want to, wish to, would 52

like to, be going to , which modify the illocutionary verb denoting the requestive intent. S may employ the Hedged Performative in order to soften the illocutionary force of a given request, as in the following examples: I would like to ask you to move your car. I want to ask you a few questions. I must / have to ask you to leave the room now. Obligation Statements When employing Obligation Statements , S either exerts his or her own authority, or refers to some external authority (e.g. institution, law, etc.) in order to persuade H to perform a desired action. Modal verbs used in this type of request are: must, have to, should, ought to . The examples are: You should / ought to move your car. You’ll have to move your car (or you’ll pay a fine). You must move your car (because I want you to). The degree of the illocutionary force of such requests depends on the verb of obligation. The illocutionary force of the verbs should / ought to weaker than the enumerated verbs of obligation. The strength of the illocutionary force of these requests lies in the usage of obligation verbs, stating explicitly who the performer of the required action is to be and the type of request. Want Statements Want Statement “expresses the speaker’s desire that the event denoted in the proposition come about”. Want Statements “assist the speaker in asserting those desires whose fulfillment depends on the hearer’s decision.” The core of this type of request involves the use of the verbs need, want, for instance: I’ll need this book very badly. I want you to meet me tomorrow at five. In such requestive forms illocutionary force is relatively strong and Want Statements are normally impolite when used in their unmodified form. 53

Here the illocutionary force may be further modified by the type of verb used ( want and хоҳламоқ – both possess a stronger illocutionary force, while need and керак, зарур, шарт have a weaker one, its grammatical form. Suggestory Formulae Suggestory Formulae “enable the Speaker to suggest very cautiously some action but s/he either cannot or does not want to press the hearer to have it performed”. When applying these formulae, S checks H’s cooperativeness by asking whether any conditions exist that may stop H from performing a requested action. Suggestory Formulae in English often begin with why not…/ why don’t… expressions, for instance: What about/ How about going to the cinema tonight? Why don’t you phone her? Why not play bridge tonight? And the Uzbek examples are: Бугун кинога боришга нима дейсиз ? Нега унга телефон қилмаслик керак ? As can be observed, Suggestory Formulae can be realized by means of either referring to the interlocutors or remaining impersonal; the latter leads to the illocutionary force being very weak. The Hearer-oriented perspective of these requests indicates the absence of authority (they seem to be merely suggestions), and thus in the case of non-compliance, S does not lose his or her face . Suggestory Formulae are likely to be used in informal situations, mainly among friends, which explain a rather low frequency of occurrence of the formal address terms. Query Preparatory Requests expressed by means of the Query Preparatory contain “reference to a preparatory condition for the feasibility of the Request, typically one of ability, willingness, or possibility, as conventionalized in the given language.” In many cases, S questions, rather than states, the presence of the chosen preparatory condition. Query Preparatory strategy is presented with reference to 54

willingness, availability, ability and possibility conditions and also courtesy, general, intention, and permission questions. a) Willingness Questions – concern H’s good will to carry out the desired act. They are Hearer-oriented, where S conveys to H that compliance is not taken for granted. The verbs of willingness can appear in the Future Simple, Simple Present Tense or Present Conditional in English and in corresponding tenses. The most polite Willingness Questions with the lowest illocutionary force are thought to be realized in the conditional form. Consider the following examples: Will you do the washing today? Won’t you give me a hand after dinner? Would you show me the way to the station, please? Strong Hints Strong Hints , contain “partial reference to objects or elements needed for the implementation of the act (directly pragmatically implying the act)”. The examples are: You’ve left the kitchen in a right mess. Strong Hints require less interpretational effort than Mild Hints. Mild Hints As far as Mild Hints are concerned, these are “utterances that make no reference to the request proper (or any elements) but are interpretable through the context as requests (indirectly pragmatically implying the act)”: Consider these examples: I’m a nun. (in response to the persistent boy) We don’t want any crowding here (a request to move the car) 55

The conclusion In the present work I have considered and analyzed the main concepts and questions concerning the problems of notions ‘discourse analyses and ‘speech acts and speech events’. We see discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world the processes, relations and structures of the material world, the mental world of thoughts, feelings, beliefs and so forth, and the social world. Particular aspects of the world may be represented differently, so we are generally in the position of having to consider the relationship between different discourses. Different discourses are different perspectives on the world, and they are associated with the different relations people have to the world, which in turn depends on their positions in the world, their social and personal identities, and the social relationships in which they stand to other people. Discourses not only represent the world as it is (or rather is seen to be), they are also projective, imaginaries, representing possible worlds which are different from the actual world, and tied in to projects to change the world in particular directions. The relationships between different discourses are one element of the 56

relationships between different people they may complement one another, compete with one another, one can dominate others, and so forth. Discourses constitute part of the resources which people deploy in relating to one another keeping separate from one another, cooperating, competing, and dominating and in seeking to change the ways in which they relate to one another. To conclude, as is evident from the work presented, the nature and structure of the discourse analysis and speech act are complex due to the interrelationships among the par ticipants and their aims, their expectations and assumptions, the ways in which meaning emerges, and the way participants represent those mean ings in their languages. Studying discourse, its phenomena and speech event among and between the participants and the interpreter explicates how the inter preting process works and how the interpreter works within it. One of the aims of the graduation work was to provide a pragmatic contrastive analysis of the realization of Speech Act of Requesting in English and Uzbek. The aforementioned comparative study was carried out with respect to the level of directness of a request, and request modification strategies (both internal and external). The model proposed by Blum-Kulka et al. (1989) has been very helpful in coding the data and spotting the differences between the two language groups. The question that remains the most difficult to answer is the nature of such differences. It seems that politeness theory, in its present form, is not enough to explain such differences, since they seem less from universal norms of politeness but more form culture-specific values and attitudes. Understanding these values and attitudes is essential to understand the use of a particular language. In the light of the present findings on requests in the two compared languages, I could claim that indirectness always motivates politeness does not hold true for language users coming from different speech communities, and thus should be treated with some reservation. It holds for English requests, where conventionally indirect request strategies appear very frequently, but not for their Uzbek equivalents, where direct request strategies (i.e. imperatives) function as the preferred, socially and culturally acceptable request strategies in some situations. 57

The choice of direct strategies by Uzbeks is motivated by cultural values, i.e. power distance. The large power distance of the Uzbek culture results in using imperatives in situations characterized by lack of familiarity (e.g. service encounters). On the other hand, imperatives can be also employed in situations where there is no power distance (e.g. among friends and family members), especially if associated with easiness of the task and a pre-agreement to comply with the request. This is so because Uzbek allows combining directness with warmth- and friendliness-devices. Contrary to Uzbek, English does not allow request in the form of imperatives to such a great extent. This might be due to the fact that imperative and infinitive forms are identical in English, which enhances the illocutionary force of imperatives making them sound like orders rather than requests. Cultural differences in the use of linguistic forms also revealed that the level of family collectivism seems to be lower in England than in Uzbekistan. The present analysis focuses on the request realizations of situations in English and Uzbek. It should be remembered that it does not cover all the aspects of request realization in the two languages in question. As has been mentioned before, more research is needed before generalizations can be made about the nature of English and Uzbek. Such research ought to employ varying data elicitation tools, ideally those by means of which naturally-occurring material can be obtained. Not withstanding the aforementioned limitations, the findings of the current study of the language use in English and Uzbek adds to the research on contrastive analysis of speech act realization and politeness formulas in the two language communities. The second chapter expands on the research in the field of contrastive analysis by examining the strategies used by English and Uzbek speakers when requesting a service or asking permission to carry out some action. The analysis focuses on the head act strategies employed and on the quantity and kinds of internal and external modification found in English and Uzbek. The empirical material for this study comes from the analysis of responses to questionnaires. The findings of the present 58

study will provide useful data for describing English and Uzbek language use in different contexts. The results may also be used to show cross-cultural differences in requests realization strategies. The findings may not only contribute to research on speech act realization but also on politeness. In addition, the importance of such studies for foreign language learning is obvious. Without doubt, speakers of a particular foreign language face a difficult task while learning the appropriate ways of expressing language functions. Speech acts differ cross-culturally in their distribution, function and frequency of occurrence in a particular context. Thus, it is necessary for the foreign language users to be conscious of similarities and differences between their native language and a foreign language. REFERENCES 1. Decree of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Measures For Further Enhancement Of The System Of Teaching Of Foreign Languages”. Tashkent, December 10, 2012, № PD-1875. 2. Мирзиёев Ш . М . Миллий тара ққиёт йўлимизни қатьият билан давом эттириб янги босқичга кўтарамиз. 1-tom. Тошкент “ Ўзбекистон ” 2017 . –128 p. 3. Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational Routines in English: Convention and Creativity. Harlow: Longman. 4. Austin J.L. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962. 5. Barron, A. (2007). “Contrasting requests in Inner Circle Englishes: A study in variational pragmatics.” In: M. Pütz and J. Neff van Aertselare (eds.), Developing Contrastive Pragmatics: Interlanguage and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 6. Blum-Kulka, Sh., J. House, and G. Kasper (eds.). (1989). Cross- culturalPragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation. and Blum-Kulka et al. (1989: 273-294). 7. Briggs C. Disorderly Discourse: Narrative, Conflict and Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 59

8. Brown G. and Yule G. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. 9. Carter R.A. and Simpson P. (eds) Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Discourse Stylistics. London: Unwin Hyman, 1989. 10. Chafe, W. The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W. Chafe (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, N.J.; Ablex, 9-50. 1980. 11. Coulthard M. and Johnson A. An introduction to Forensic Linguistics. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. 12. Dubrovskaya O.N. Дубровская О . Н . Speech events and cultural identity in modern Russia. //Conference “Identity and Social Change in Russia”. March 3, 2006. Saratov State University. 13. Duranti A. and Goodwin C. (eds) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. 14. Edwards D. and Potter J. Discursive Psychology. London: Sage, 1992. 15. Fairclough N. Language and Power. London: Longman, 1989. 16. Fairclough N. Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. 17. Fasold R. Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. 18. Foucault M. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock, 1972. 19. Foucault M. The order of discourse, in M. Shapiro (ed) The Language of Politics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1984. 20. Goffman E. Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. NY , 1974. 21. Gumperz J. J. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, 1982. 22. Gumperz J.J. and Hymes D. (eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 2 nd edn. New York and Oxford: Holt, Reinhart & Winston and Basil Blackwell, 1986. First edition 1972. 23. Gvishiani N. Lexical structures and discourse // Folia Anglistica., 1997, No 2. 60

24. Hatim B. and Mason I. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman, 1990. 25. Hymes D. Models of the interaction of language and social life. //John J. Gumperz & D. Hymes, eds. Directions in Sociolinguistics: Ethnography of Communication. New York, Holt, R ehart & Winston, 1972. P.35-71. 26. Jaworski A. and Coupland N. The Discourse Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. 27. Laclau E. and Mouffe C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985. 28. Levinson S.C. Speech Act theory: state of the art. Language Teaching and Linguistics: Abstracts 13: 5-24. 1980. 29. McCarthy M. Issues in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 2001. 30. Roy Cynthia B. Interpreting as a Discourse Process. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Internet resources http://www.english.ru/letter/intr.htm/ http://www.4hb.com/letters http://www.contracts.com www. tdpu. uz www. Ziyonet. uz www. edu. uz tdpu-INTRANET. Ped www. nu t q. intal. uz www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice 61

Похожие

Developing Speaking Skills in Foreign Language Teaching

The Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR), its aims and objectives

The role of a teacher in task-based language teaching

Context-based learning in EFL classes

Promotion of speaking skills through drama technique