Speech acts in spontaneous discourse - Английский язык - Дипломные работы

Информация о документе

Цена	9000UZS
Размер	76.0KB
Покупки	0
Дата загрузки	26 Сентябрь 2019
Расширение	doc
Раздел	Дипломные работы
Предмет	Английский язык

Speech acts in spontaneous discourse

Купить

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 Fe

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. Actua

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 co

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 s

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

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

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,

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 t

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 re

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

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

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) (unhapp

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 oppo

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,

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, auxilia

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 su

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

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 speec

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.

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 t

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 mak

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 illocu

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 inter

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

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.

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, t

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

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

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

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 unit

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

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 activi

- 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

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 d

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

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

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 nati

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 reason

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

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 in

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 t

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 t

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 f

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 requ

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 require

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 , s

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

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, th

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

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.

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 t

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 боришг

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

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 identitie

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

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 illocut

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

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) Rethin

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, 2

Купить