Scarica Pragmatic analysis scheme e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity!
ENGLISH GRAMMAR SEARLE’S TAXONOMY
ANALYSIS OF ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE
S AND H INVOLVEMENT
sentence type function speech act function action declarative/ affirmative states information conveys information representative/ assertive represents a state of the world conveying information considered to be true stating interrogative asks questions makes requests makes suggestions offers gives orders directives get H to do something requesting to elicit action questioning (to elicit information) commanding (to demand action) exclamatory expresses exclamation as a reaction of surprise /shock declaratives create a change in an institutional state of the reality of S felicity conditions : pronouncing the correct formula having the required authority excommunicating declaring war christening firing expressives express a psychological state, attitude, emotion, feeling of S thanking apologizing welcoming greeting congratulating imperative expresses directives makes invitations makes requests commissives informs about/commits H to a future action felicity conditions : S must have authority on H promising threatening, offering
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS OF
SPEECH ACTS
RESULT OF SPEECH ACTS FELICITY CONDITIONS
locutionary grammatically correct formulation of the content felicitous 1. H is able to do A illocutionary hidden intention infelicitous 2. S believes H can do A perlocutionary unpredictable effect depending on whether is felicitous or infelicitous In textual analysis of fictitious languages which are made up, felicity conditions are always fulfilled , irrelevant then to the analysis
- S needs to ask H to do A irrelevant in commands CLASSIFICATION SINCERITY CONDITIONS otherwise it’s manipulation direct match grammar classification - Searle’s taxonomy careful to performative verbs which make the speech act explicitly (clarifying the type of act performed)/implicitly performative: _- to abstain
- to accept
- to advice
- to agree
- to apologize
- to bet
- to promise
- to request
- to second
- to suggest
- to vote
- to warn_
- S actually wants H to do A indirect mismatch grammar classification - Searle’s taxonomy
- Is a genuine attempt to make H do A
mismatch between expectations and reality ] thus violating maxims banter offensive and abusive on a locutionary level to tease and flirt can be a politeness strategy, aims to bring out harmony and a common ground reinforcing thus social relationships sarcasm to make criticisms to be sure of not being obscure This may sound a bit confused I’m not sure if this makes sense I don’t know if this is clear at all relation when S is being careful to cooperation I don’t know if this is important This may sound like a dumb question Not to change the subject Oh, by the way Well, anyway manner to exclude other interactants, explicits in obscurity/ambiguity Introductory verbs with subj pov seem , tend , look like , appear to be , think , doubt , be sure , indicate Lexical verbs believe , assume , suggest Modal verbs will/would , must/could , may/might Adv of frequency often , sometimes , usually Modal adv certainly , definitely , clearly , probably , possibly , perhaps , conceivably Modal adj certain , definite , clear , probable , possible relation H is expected to infer what hasn’t been
Modal nouns assumption , possibility , probability ‘That’ clauses the case/suggested/hope that ‘To-clause’+adj important/possible/ useful… to CONVERSATION ANALYSIS Conversation ← turn sequences TCUs (c.unit) its end transition relevance place TRPs ⎹ prosody/intonation
1. Analyse turn-length and overall distribution of word-counts for each **character
- Interruptions and by whom** are made to understand who detains power in the conversation and to achieve **what
- Topic control and by whom** **is made and to achieve what
- Terms of address used to** **each other
- Any other turn-taking** **feature that can be relevant
- Include all deducible** information to infer the sociological variables even taking from previous **conversations and scenes
- Include other features of** **conversational structure
- Analyze comparison actual** and expected behaviour Turn-taking right to speak (floor) ADJACENCY PAIRS can be analyzed in terms of (im)politeness [interruptions, simultaneous speech] first parts second parts preferred dispreferred delivered immediate ly delivered fluent ly in brief form preceded by pause weight in terms of language economy directly proportional to the communicative effort employed accompanied by dispreference markers included within (im)politeness redressive strategies : em/er silence/delays/ hesitations well/oh prefaces yes (, but) tokens to smooth potential face attack/interruptions expressing doubt/ uncertainty apologies/accounts/ referring to obligations appeals for understanding/ generalisations A character may not interrupt because is afraid of exposing/causing offense/speaking his mind/want to change the topic A character may use overpoliteness (terms of address) to be persuasive through adulation Clashes between two different powers (personal and institutional for instance)
○ identity apparatus regulator ( of formation and recognition ) / psychological interior and social exterior self-image ○ expected to be recognized by the others according to face wants ( expectation of respect towards self-image ) leading to face concern regulating conversation ○ mask consciously and unconsciously worn on many levels of perception and awareness leading to ○ mutual concern due to potential identification ○ projection of what we want/fear to be/seem limited by reality ○ extended to what related to the self ○ linked to the interpretation of the self in the real world double as extension of interiority probabily monstrous siamo come sembriamo o sembriamo come siamo 2 strategies basing on type of face :
- Positive politeness s. : support outside positive face wants through positive politeness speech acts: praising, complimenting, showing affect/sympathy/friendliness/direct interest/solidarity/camaraderie, using heartily expressions/terms of address and titles, adulation
- Negative politeness s. : support inside negative face wants through negative politeness speech acts: emphasizing social distance, using titles/greetings/deference/indirectness/formulaic expressions, apologizing to protect face from FTA ≠ FSA weapons in the battlefield of conversation t o mitigate or respond to another FTA; how participants manipulate their messages in order to spur or give face destabilize the balance expected to prevail in the conversation: ● strong will/need to avoid conflict → face saved/reinforced ● lack of interest/poor face concern→ face threatened SOCIAL VARIABLES STRATEGIES (P)ower : institutional =institutional role in society, status (higher→ more politeness) psychological social
- social role
- gender/sex: women
language is a means of keeping in touch, are more polite than men language is a means of obtaining and conveying information conventional
- Not to do the FTA or to do the FTA
- In doing it to: I. Go off record : S’s intentions are not clear, obscure → implicature is ambiguous and A can’t infer meaning ; must rely on perlocutionary effect ; most indirect way of speaking; if S isn’t able to use language can think to be going off record but is actually on record II. Go on record : implicatures can be inferred due to S’s going on common ground ; A. Without redressive (mitigating) action , bald on record : when no face concern because minimized/irrelevant, resulting into a full FTA sometimes; direct, clear unambiguous
expectations which change for men basing on their status
- age personal = S’s individuality , ability of leadership ability of involve/stand up against others, mastery in use of language showing insightfulness/cleverness social (D)istance , degree of intimacy transversal to power (more intimate→less polite) (A)ffect , degree of liking each other (love, friendship) (R)iskiness , content of message , on which may depend face loss B. With redressive action using politeness strategies basing on use/purpose, including banter and irony (depending on the conversation, generally neutral, doesn’t allow to understand if used to disrupt or create harmony) IMPOLITENESS formulaic non-implicational politeness ● conventional, common to S and A with supposed awareness ● social phenomenon ● derogative terms, curse words strategic impoliteness setting 5 categories of impoliteness usage mirroring structurally Brown and Levinson’s model : A. Bald on record impoliteness : even though there’s face concern not minimized/ irrelevant, results into a full FTA sometimes; direct, clear unambiguous B. Redressive impoliteness , can be: a. Positive impoliteness : strategies to damage positive face wants b. Negative impoliteness : strategies to damage negative face wants C. Sarcasm/mock impoliteness : FTA using insincere politeness (only superficial), including irony and sarcasm D. Withhold politeness : absence of politeness where expected MODEL OF ANALYSIS OF IMPOLITENESS 1. Evaluation of whether or not interactants are flouting maxims 2. Definition of polite or impolite strategies taking models from Brown and Levinson and Culpeper 3. Analyze the semantics of sentences 4. Presence of semantic impolite or polite words ( derogatory terms ecc .) 5. Use of titles to see level of distance/intimacy expressed 6. Use of modality politeness 7. Use of speech acts markers of hidden/explicit requests/commands 8. Speaker’s intention through conversation dynamics/character’s identity to understand the reason of the behaviour and what they want to achieve through this
PERSONAGGI
Some characters may be pragmatically incompetent , they don’t understand indirect levels of communication and the conditions under which the communication is taking place: why and type of incompetence
WHAT TO ANALYZE
In order to take notes of all the possible interpretations, versions and meanings in a given text/conversation are analyzed:
**- intention of S
- expected and unexpected effect** **on H
- the understanding on H’s behalf
- purpose of communication
- how communication flows
- contextualization**
- social identity of S and H and their relationship and behaviour towards each other at different stages/compared with other interlocutors - conflict in dialogue as key to interpret the development of characterization and plot
TYPE OF ANALYSIS
Profiling =studying Characterisation (=linguistic process by which a text creates and uses a Character =projection, representation of a fictitious persona always satisfying expectations) selecting characters important : Bad characters QUESTIONS What are the maxims they can’t flout? Why are they geniuses and where is vulnus? How do characters position themselves in relation to other characters? How do they manipulate others in pursuit of their goals? How is the plot pushed forward? how a character might ingratiate themselves with/offend another? Using the double architecture of drama, explain what the audience knows at the end of the segment, the difference between what a character knows and what it reveals the audience about the character lying to lead to a characterization.
SCENES
- First apparition of the character to understand characterisation and interaction
- Crucial moments of interaction with characters
- Cases in which a character adopts a strategy and note the recurring strategy features employed by that character - Conflict in dialogue
- Interrogation as battlefield in which analysing resistance of detective influenced by variables and whether if masked ot **institutionalized
- Unveiling of the truth**
NOVEL DRAMA FEATURES
EXTRADIEGETIC LEVEL :
addresser= author message= text/novel addressee= reader(s) INTRADIEGETIC LEVEL : addresser= narrator/character as narrator message= story addressee= audience/narratee, character to whom the story is told INTRADIEGETIC LEVEL : addresser= character A message= content of dialogue addressee= character B
EXTRADIEGETIC LEVEL :
addresser= playwright message= text/novel addressee= audience complex communicative performative act connecting addresser and addressee = focus on the perlocutionary effect. INTRADIEGETIC LEVEL : addresser= character A message= content of dialogue addressee= character B Klauk and Köppe distinguish between: fiction, fictionality , referring to texts, utterances, other media and the sum of events in a fictional text fictitious, fictivity , referring to characters, entities and events not existing in the reality
- and 3/2. are levels of embedded discourse → shifting of elements :
- features marking for social relations between characters = 1. messages about a character
- content of conversation = 1. characterization/interpretation of the character possibility to use dramatic irony characters have an extra meaning , can be analyzed to see the development of characterization and plot narrative pact (author-recipients) with still irrational emotional reactions due to identification adherence with the pov constructed for us lead by the empathy for the characters and the willingness to share their feelings different expectations foregrounding/defamiliarisation : a psychological technique, repetition or interruption of an expected linguistic/social pattern to focus the attention of the reader/audience on a particular side of the text; jokes the reader
