The rhetorical relations approach to indirect speech acts

Pragmatics and Cognition 17 (1):43-76 (2009)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Asher and Lascarides maintain that speech act types, the sorts of linguistic actions described and categorized, most influentially, by Austin and Searle are rhetorical relations. This relational account of speech acts is problematic for two reasons: Despite Asher and Lascarides ingenious appeal to dot type speech acts, the relational account is incompatible with the widespread phenomenon of indirect speech; only some speech acts are plausibly identified with rhetorical relations. These problems can be solved if a distinction between two kinds of speech act is recognized: Discourse-structuring speech acts are performed upon utterances and thus are plausibly identified with rhetorical relations, while non-discourse-structuring speech acts are performed upon conversational participants and thus are not plausibly identified with such relations. The typologies for these two kinds of speech acts cut across one another, and this suggests a promising approach to the phenomenon of indirect speech acts.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,098

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Indirect speech acts.Nicholas Asher & Alex Lascarides - 2001 - Synthese 128 (1-2):183 - 228.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-02-21

Downloads
13 (#1,066,279)

6 months
5 (#710,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Lenny Clapp
Northern Illinois University

Citations of this work

What is an indirect speech act?Jörg Meibauer - 2019 - Pragmatics and Cognition 26 (1):61-84.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references