114网址导航Speech Act Theory
Representatives
Directives
Expressives
Comissives
Declaratives
assertions
& suggestions
declarations
& commands
Speech act theory attempts to explain how speakers use language to
accomplish intended actions and how hearers infer intended meaning form what is
said.& Although speech act studies are now considered a sub-discipline of
cross-cultural pragmatics, they actually take their origin in the philosophy of
It was for too
long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a ‘statement’ can
only be to ‘describe’ some state of affairs, or to ‘state some fact’,
which it must do either truly or falsely. (…) But now in recent years, many
things, which would once have been accepted without question as ‘statements’
by both philosophers and grammarians have been scrutinized with new care. (…)
It has come to be commonly held that many utterances which look like statements
are either not intended at all, or only intended in part, to record or impart
straight forward information about the facts (…). (Austin, 1962, p. 1)
Philosophers like Austin (1962), Grice (1957), and Searle (,
1975) offered basic insight into this new theory of linguistic communication
based on the assumption that& “(…)
the minimal units of human communication are not linguistic expressions, but
rather the performance of certain kinds of acts, such as making statements,
asking questions, giving directions, apologizing, thanking, and so on” (Blum-Kulka,
House, & Kasper, 1989, p.2). Austin (1962) defines the performance of
uttering words with a consequential purpose as “the performance of a
locutionary act, and the study of utterances thus far and in these respects the
study of locutions, or of the full units of speech” (p. 69). These units of
speech are not tokens of the symbol or word or sentence but rather units of
linguistic communication and it is “(…) the production of the token in the
performance of the speech act that constitutes the basic unit of linguistic
communication” (Searle, 1965, p.136). According to Austin’s theory, these
functional units of communication have prepositional or locutionary meaning (the
literal meaning of the utterance), illocutionary meaning (the social function of
the utterance), and perlocutionary force (the effect produced by the utterance
in a given context) (Cohen, 1996, p. 384).
Speech acts have been claimed by some to operate by universal pragmatic
principles (Austin, (1962),& Searle
(), Brown & Levinson (1978)). Others have shown them to vary in
conceptualization and verbalization across cultures and languages (Wong, 1994;
Wierzbicka, 1985). Although this debate has generated over three decades of
research, only the last 15 years marked a shift from an intuitively based
approach to an empirically based one, which “has focused on the perception and
production of speech acts by learners of a second or foreign language (in the
most cases, English as a second or foreign language, i.e., ESL and EFL) at
varying stages of language proficiency and in different social interactions”
(Cohen, 1996, p. 385).& Blum Kulka
et. al., (1989) argue that there is a strong need to complement theoretical
studies of speech acts with empirical studies, based on speech acts produced by
native speakers of individual languages in strictly defined contexts.
The illocutionary choices embraced by individual languages reflect what
Gumperz (1982) calls “cultural logic” (pp. 182-185). Consider the following
The fact that
two speakers whose sentences are quite grammatical can differ radically in their
interpretation of each other’s verbal strategies indicates that conversational
management does rest on linguistic knowledge. But to find out what that
knowledge is we must abandon the existing views of communication which draw a
basic distinction between cultural or social knowledge on the one hand and
linguistic signaling processes on the other. (pp. 185-186)
Differences in
“cultural logic” embodied in individual languages involve the implementation
of various linguistic mechanisms.& As
numerous studies have shown, these mechanisms are rather culture-specific and
may cause breakdowns in inter-ethnic communication. Such communication
breakdowns are largely due to a language transfer at the sociocultural level
where cultural differences play a part in selecting among the potential
strategies for realizing a given speech act. Hence the need to make the
instruction of speech acts an instrumental component of every ESL/ EFL
curriculum.
When second language learners engage in conversations with native
speakers, difficulties may arise due to their lack of mastery of the
conversational norms involved in the production of speech acts. Such
conversational difficulties may in turn cause breakdowns in interethnic
communication (Gumperz, 1990). When the nonnative speakers violate speech act
realization patterns typically used by native speakers of a target language,
they often suffer the perennial risk of inadvertently violating conversational
(and politeness) norms thereby forfeiting their claims to being treated by their
interactants as social equals (Kasper, 1990, p. 193).
Communication difficulties result when conversationalists do not share
the same knowledge of the subtle rules governing conversation. Scarcella (1990)
ascribes high frequency of such difficulties to the fact that “nonnative
speakers, when conversing, often transfer the conversational rules of their
first language into the second” (p. 338). Scarcella provides the following
example. (Bracketing indicates interruptions.)
speaker A:&&&& Mary’s invited us to lunch. Do you wanna
speaker B:&&&& Sure.&&&&
[I’m not busy right now.&&&&&
A:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
[Good& &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
[I’ll come by in about thirty minutes
speaker B:&&&& Think& we& oughta&
bring&&&&&&&
[anything?
speaker A:&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
[No, but I’ll bring some wine anyway.
(1990, p. 338)
In this exchange, the native
speaker B inaccurately concluded that the
nonnative speaker A is rude since like many Americans, he regards interruptions
as impolite.
Rather than associate
rudeness with A’s linguistic behavior, however, B associates rudeness with A
herself. B’s reasoning might be as follows: A interruptions are
therefore, A is rude. Such reasoning is unfortunate for A, who comes from
Iran where interruptions may be associated with friendliness, indicating the
conversationalist’s active involvement in the interaction. (Scarcella, 1990,
Learners who repeatedly
experience conversational difficulties tend to cut themselves from speakers of
the target community, not only withdrawing from them socially, but
psychologically as well (Scarcella, 1990). “’Psychological distance’ or a
‘high filter’ might be related to a number of factors, including culture
shock and cultural stress” (Scarcella, 1990, p. 343) All these factors ignite
a cycle that eventually hinders second language acquisition.
First, the learners experience conversational
difficulties.
Next, they become “clannish”, clinging to
their own group.
This limits their interaction with members of
the target culture and increases solidarity with their own cultural group.
That, in turn, creates social distance between
themselves and the target group.
The end result is that the second language
acquisition is hindered since they don’t receive the input necessary for
their language development. (Scarcella, 1990, p. 342)
Cohen (1996) claims that the fact that speech acts reflect somewhat
routinized language behavior helps learning in the sense that much of what is
said is predictable.& For example,
Wolfson & Manes, (1980) have found that adjectives nice or good (e.g.,
&That's a nice shirt you're wearing& or &it was a good talk you
gave&) are used almost half the time when complimenting in English and beautiful,
pretty, and great make up another 15 percent.
Yet despite the routinized nature of speech acts, there are still various
strategies to choose form - depending on the sociocultural context - and often a variety of
possible language forms for realizing these strategies, especially in the case of speech
acts with four or more possible semantic formulas such as apologies and complaints. Target
language learners may
tend to respond the way they would in their native language and culture and find
that their utterances are not at all appropriate for the target language and
culture situation. (Cohen, 1996, p. 408)
At present, there is an increasing number of studies dealing with
teaching speech act behavior in an ESL/ EFL classroom. Olshtein and Cohen
(1990), for instance, conducted a study of apologies made by EFL learners in
Israel who were taught a set of lessons on the strategies used by native English
speakers to apologize. They found that situational features can indeed be taught
in the foreign language classroom. Whereas before these apology lessons, the
nonnative speakers' apologies differed from the native English speakers', after
instruction, learners selected strategies, which were more native-like.
Scarcella (1990) provides second language instructors with a number of
guidelines intended to reduce negative consequences of communication
difficulties and increase the learners’ conversational competence through
improving their motivation:
Stress the advantages of conversing like a
native speaker.
Stress that it is not necessary to converse
perfectly to communicate in the second language.
Impress upon learners that they should not be
overly concerned with communication difficulties.
Help students accept communication difficulties
as normal.
Provide students with information about
communication difficulties.
Do not expect students to develop the
conversational skills needed to overcome all communication difficulties.
Provide communicative feedback regarding
student success in conveying meaning and accomplishing communicative
objectives.
Teach students strategies to help them overcome
communication difficulties in the real world. (1990, pp. 345-346)
Austin, J. L. (1962). How
to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., &
Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
&apologies.
Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Brown, P., &
Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.
N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interactions (pp.
56-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. (1996) Speech Acts. In
S.L. McKay, & N.H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics
language teaching
(pp. 383 – 420).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.&
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and
conversation. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The
(pp. 76-87). New York: Routledge.&
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse
strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.&
Gumperz, J. (1990). The
conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In R. C. Scarcella, E.
S. Andersen, and S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative
competence
in a second language: Series on issues in second language research
223-238). Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.&
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic
politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics, 14,193-218.&
Meechan, M., & Rees-Miller,
J. (2001). Language in social sontexts. In W. O’Grady, J.Archibald, M.
Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (Eds.), Contemporary linguistics: An
introduciotn. (Fourth edition). (pp. 537-590). New York: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.&
Robinson, M. (1991).
Introspective methodology in interlanguage pragmatics research. In G. Kasper (Ed.), Pragmatics
of Japanese as native and target language (pp. 29-84). (Technical
R Vol 3). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center,
University of Hawaii.&
Scarcella, R. C. (1990).
Communication difficulties in second language production, development,
and instruction. In R. C. Scarcella, E.S. Andersen, & S. D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language: Series on issues in second
language research. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.&
Searle, J. (1965). What is a
speech act? In P. P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and social context (pp.136–154).
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.&
Searle, J. (1969). Speech
acts: Am essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Searle, J. (1975). Indirect
speech acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech
Acts (pp. 59–82). New York.&
Takanashi, T., & Beebe, L. M.
(1993). Cross-linguistic influence in the speech act of correction.&In S. Blum-Kulka, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Interlanguage
pragmatics (pp. 138 – 157). New&York: Oxford University Press.&
Tickle, A. L. (1991). Japanese
refusals in a business setting. Papers in Applied Linguistics –
Michigan, 6(2),
84–108.&&&
Wierzbicka, A. (1985).&
Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts:&Polish vs. English, Journal
of Pragmatics, 9, 145–178.&
Wolfson, N., & Manes, J.
(1980). The compliment as a social strategy. Papers in Linguistics, 13(3), 391–410.&
Wong, S. M. L. (1994).
Imperatives in requests: Direct or impolite-observations from Chinese, Pragmatics, 4,114网址导航Teaching with songs
it is a list of songs with related activities to practise vocabulary,
grammar, sounds, etc. Most of them are &popular& among our
Spanish students and some others are old songs, but nice and useful.& Click
here to go directly to the
songs. They
are arranged in alphabetical order according to the singers.
Download the IPA Fonts
to install them and be able to see the phonetic symbols when they appear in
the exercises.Or
Info Superhighway, by 2 Unlimited
Overprotected by Britney Spears
Luisa Gonz醠ez de Castej髇
In your eyes, by Kylie Minogue}