If a speaker asks ‘Would you like a cup of coffee?’, how then does the hearer know that this is an act of asking and that it is not an act of, for example, warning? The idea of direct and indirect illocutions, within the field of interpersonal and non-literal meaning in semantics, deals with such questions. Why and in how far can speakers of a language differentiate between the mere literal meaning and reading of an utterance and the meaning beyond this literal form? And how can we form rules and ideas to identify such components in an utterance?
The following essay will therefore concentrate on that question. As a matter of fact, it is therefore necessary to take a look at some other ideas within the field of illocution. The first chapter deals with the act of assertion, the idea of speech acts and the distinction between illocutions and perlocutions. In the second chapter, we will focus on the distinction between direct and indirect illocutions, followed by the third chapter, dealing with the relation between both types of illocutions of an utterance. Direct and indirect illocutions are naturally related in several ways, as we will discuss this point later on.
In fact, direct and indirect illocutions are related in many ways. The following essay will firstly build a basis for that discussion, focus on the need for a distinction between direct and indirect illocutions and finish with a discussion of four possible relations within the field of illocutions. As regards these ideas, the work of Hurford, Heasley and Smith built the basis for this essay. Furthermore, Kreidler’s and Austin’s standard works provided helpful examples and definitions. The work of Leech gave interesting hints at the relation between indirect and direct illocutions and connected them to the field of pragmatics.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. How are the direct and indirect illocutions of an utterance related?
2.1 Assertions, speech acts and the distinction between illocutions and perlocutions
2.2 The distinction between direct and indirect illocutions
2.3 The relation between direct and indirect illocutions
3. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Topics
This essay explores how language users distinguish between literal utterance meanings and intended meanings beyond the surface level, specifically focusing on the relationship between direct and indirect illocutions within the framework of semantics and pragmatics.
- The distinction between locution, illocution, and perlocutionary acts.
- The role of felicity conditions in successful communication.
- The relationship between literal meaning and speaker intention.
- How direct illocutions serve as a foundation for indirect illocutions.
- Analysis of performative versus constative utterances.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1 Assertions, speech acts and the distinction between illocutions and perlocutions
Within the field of interpersonal and non-literal meaning in semantics, the relevance of utterances is of exceptional importance. According to Hurford, Heasley and Smith, utterances can actually do things. Before we therefore have a close look at this idea, we should understand the notions of assertion and the so-called descriptive fallacy.
“An act of assertion is carried out when a speaker utters a declarative sentence […] and undertakes a certain responsibility, to the hearer, that a particular state of affair […] exists in the world”. It is important to mention this idea of assertion because it is the basis for the following ideas of the illocutionary acts. If a speaker of English says ‘I know Sebastian for years’, he asserts that in the real world a person named Sebastian exists and that he knows this person for a certain period of time. In this respect, the descriptive fallacy is the view “…that the sole purpose of making assertions is to describe some state of affairs”. According to this fallacy, the only purpose of the speaker’s utterance ‘I know Sebastian for years’ would be to describe a specific state of affairs. Native speakers of English would deny that fact, saying that there is a meaning “behind” this assertion, possibly including the idea that the speaker does not only know Sebastian for a long time, but has a close connection to him.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the research focus on how listeners identify non-literal meanings and establishes the theoretical basis using works by Hurford, Heasley, Smith, Austin, and Leech.
2. How are the direct and indirect illocutions of an utterance related?: Examines the mechanisms behind speech acts, defining key terminology and investigating how intent is communicated.
2.1 Assertions, speech acts and the distinction between illocutions and perlocutions: Defines the act of assertion and explains the fundamental differences between what a speaker intends (illocution) and the effect on the hearer (perlocution).
2.2 The distinction between direct and indirect illocutions: Explores the concept of felicity conditions and distinguishes between literal meaning and further, implied illocutions.
2.3 The relation between direct and indirect illocutions: Analyzes how direct illocutions function as a basis for indirect ones and how both reflect the speaker's overarching intent within a social context.
3. Conclusion: Summarizes the necessity of distinguishing between different levels of illocution for a complete understanding of language usage and speaker intention.
Keywords
Semantics, Pragmatics, Illocution, Perlocution, Speech Acts, Direct Illocution, Indirect Illocution, Felicity Conditions, Assertion, Descriptive Fallacy, Performative Utterances, Constative Utterances, Utterance Meaning, Social Interaction, Speaker Intention.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this paper?
The paper examines the relationship between direct and indirect illocutions of utterances, specifically focusing on how speakers convey non-literal meaning and how hearers successfully decode these intentions.
What are the core thematic fields covered?
The core themes include semantics, interpersonal meaning, the nature of speech acts, felicity conditions in communication, and the distinction between literal and implied communicative intent.
What is the main research question or objective?
The objective is to understand why and how speakers and listeners differentiate between the literal meaning of an utterance and the intended meaning that exists beyond that literal form.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper utilizes a qualitative theoretical analysis of established linguistic literature, specifically referencing frameworks by Hurford, Heasley, Smith, Austin, and Leech to deconstruct speech acts.
What is addressed in the main body of the text?
The body covers the definition of assertions, the tripartite distinction of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, the application of felicity conditions, and the interdependent relationship between direct and indirect speech acts.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include Semantics, Pragmatics, Illocution, Perlocution, Speech Acts, and Felicity Conditions.
How does the author define a "perlocutionary act"?
A perlocutionary act is defined as the effect or interpretation caused on the hearer, distinct from the speaker's original intent.
Why is the "descriptive fallacy" important for this study?
It is important because it highlights the limitation of viewing language solely as a tool for describing states of affairs, thus justifying the need to analyze the meaning "behind" assertions.
What role do "felicity conditions" play in this analysis?
Felicity conditions are the necessary social and situational requirements that must be met for an illocutionary act to be performed successfully and appropriately.
- Citar trabajo
- Thomas Schulze (Autor), 2009, The Relation between direct and indirect illocutions of an utterance, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/179828
