<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Dear Jürgen and everybody,<br>
<br>
on the one hand, questions like whether exclamations have
illocutionary force may be decided <i>per definitionem</i>. On
the other, these are concepts which are reflected in linguistic
structure; therefore we try to define them so as to maximize their
match with linguistic structure.<br>
<br>
I modestly surmise that, from this point of view, <span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Searle &
Vanderveken's definition of 'expressives' produces a
(linguistically) incoherent category, as it is meant to include,
on the one hand, congratulations, excuses and thanks, and on
the other, exclamations like the ones I quoted before. These are
two different categories: the former triple appeals to the
hearer, exclamations do not. <br>
<br>
Also, exclamative sentences constitute a sentence type in many
languages, beside the basic sentence types of </span><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">declarative, directive
and interrogative. However, there are performative verbs for
these latter (as there are performative verbs for
congratulations, excuses and thanks) , while</span><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""> there is no
performative verb for exclamations like 'I hereby exclaim that
p.' It therefore remains to be plausibilized that exclamations
"perform a speech act", as you say. But again, this may be a
matter of definition.<br>
<br>
At any rate, from a linguistic point of view, the uppermost
division of utterances might be into interactive and exclamative
ones. And the entire business of illocution would develop inside
the category of interactive utterances.<br>
<br>
Sorry for bothering the list of linguistic typology with
semantic and maybe pragmatic issues. However, we do typological
comparison on the basis of functional categories and operations;
and all the while I am trying to systematize these.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Christian<br>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</span><br>
Am 25.08.24 um 15:55 schrieb Juergen Bohnemeyer:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:SJ0PR15MB469622BF88F680D318F86C34DD8A2@SJ0PR15MB4696.namprd15.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"CMU Serif";
panose-1:2 0 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:"Times New Roman \(Body CS\)";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}p.western, li.western, div.western
{mso-style-name:western;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"CMU Serif";
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}</style>
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Dear Christian –
According to my understanding of speech act theory, the only
way for an utterance to fail to perform a speech act is by
being infelicitous. (This generalization hinges on the
definition of ‘utterance.’ I believe that the generalization
holds, at least in first approximation, if ‘utterance’ is
understood as a minimal ‘turn-constructing unit’ in the
sense of conversation analysis.) Therefore, your examples in
(2) must have illocutionary force unless they happen to be
infelicitous, which would presumably depend on the context
(as there is nothing obvious in the sentences themselves
that would render them infelicitous). <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">On the
classification developed by Searle (1976) and Searle &
Vanderveken (1985), these utterances would be ‘expressives’,
which Searle & Vanderveken define as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">“The expressive
point is to express feelings and attitudes. In utterances
with the expressive point the speaker expresses some
psychological attitude about the state of affairs
represented by the propositional content.” (S&V p38)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Now, Searle (and
Searle & Vanderveken) claim(s) the classification of
speech acts into ‘assertions’, ‘directives’, ‘commissives’,
‘declarations’, and ‘expressives’ to be exhaustive. To me,
this seems rather implausible. So there may well be a
superior classification to be had, which may place your
examples under a different category. And perhaps an
exhaustive classification of speech acts without a remainder
category is in fact impossible. The problem of classifying
speech acts strikes me rather analogous to that of
classifying semantic roles.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Best – Juergen<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Searle, J. R.
(1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in
Society 5(1): 1-23.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"">Searle, J. R.
& D. Vanderveken. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary
logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black">Juergen
Bohnemeyer (He/Him)<br>
Professor, Department of Linguistics<br>
University at Buffalo <br>
<br>
Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus<br>
Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260 <br>
Phone: (716) 645 0127 <br>
Fax: (716) 645 3825<br>
Email: </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a
href="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu"
title="mailto:jb77@buffalo.edu" moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0078D4">jb77@buffalo.edu</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
Web: </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><a
href="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"
title="http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/"
moz-do-not-send="true"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:#0563C1">http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/</span></a></span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"> <br>
<br>
</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Office
hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom
(Meeting ID 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh) </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Helvetica;color:black"><br>
<br>
There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light
Gets In <br>
(Leonard Cohen) </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">-- <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"" lang="DE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"CMU Serif"" lang="DE"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:12.0pt;margin-left:.5in">
<b><span style="color:black">From: </span></b><span
style="color:black">Lingtyp <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org></a>
on behalf of Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Sunday, August 25, 2024 at 12:14<br>
<b>To: </b><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org"><lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>[Lingtyp] optative sentences<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">Dear
colleagues, <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
since my master’s thesis (admittedly, a couple years
ago), I have been struggling with the manifestation of
volition in grammar. Please consider the following
contrast:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
There is one type of utterances which communicate to the
hearer that the speaker <u> wants</u> P. Like a
command, they appeal to him to see to it that P be
realized. This is explicit in (1a).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
(1)(a) Please shut the window!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
(b) The window should be shut.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
In this sense, (1b) is an indirect speech act, but the
type of volition conveyed is the same. One might say
that (1)(a) and (b) share their illocutionary force.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
There is another type of utterances which express that
the speaker <u>wishes</u> P. They are exclamations
which do not appeal to anybody for fulfillment of P:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
(2)(a) If only Linda arrived in time!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
(b) The devil take him!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
Sentences of type #2 are introduced by <i>utinam</i> in
Latin, <i>ojalá</i> in Spanish, and so forth. Such
particles are not used in sentences of type #1.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
Also, unfulfillable wishes (traditionally: irreal
optative sentences) are fine and common as type #2, but
in type #1 produce utterances hard to interpret.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
<o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in">
Here are my questions to you:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Is there an
established conceptual and terminological distinction
between these two types? How about (1) volitive and (2)
optative?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="western"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">·<span
style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Does type #2 have
an illocutionary force? Do exclamations have an
illocutionary force?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in">-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<p style="margin-left:.5in"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt">Prof. em. Dr. Christian
Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="margin-left:.5in"
cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt">Tel.:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt">+49/361/2113417<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt">E-Post:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt"><a
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt">Web:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
<td style="padding:.75pt .75pt .75pt .75pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt"><a
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu/"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:.5in"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<p style="font-size:90%">Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann<br>
Rudolfstr. 4<br>
99092 Erfurt<br>
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Deutschland</span></p>
<table style="font-size:80%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Tel.:</td>
<td>+49/361/2113417</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>E-Post:</td>
<td><a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:christianw_lehmann@arcor.de">christianw_lehmann@arcor.de</a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Web:</td>
<td><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://www.christianlehmann.eu">https://www.christianlehmann.eu</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</body>
</html>