Introduction and question

[David]

Spare us the definitions and theory PUHLEEZ.  Just because you know a bunch
of theory doesn't mean your smart.

You're own argument proves you utterly incorrect by the fact that the
audience responded with a counter-attack on the use of syntax.  Its a common
flame technique to focus on the syntax of the other person's flame.  That
indicates the audience DID understand the speaker's intended message!

The audience's perlocutionary act in response to the writer's locutionary
act was a parry, thus indicating the intended message was understood; ergo,
the period served its purpose.

Ergo - Consequently; therefore.  (American Heritage Dictionary).

Parry - "2. An evasive answer or action."  (American Heritage Dictionary).


----- Original Message -----
From: <P2052 at AOL.COM>
To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: Introduction and question


> I think an argument such as is presented here falls under the realm of
> pragmatics, which is concerned with the communicative function of
language,
> or its situational context. This particular utterance, an insult disguised
as
> a tag question,  constitutes an indirect speech act.   To use Austin's
terms,
>  the illocutionary act (speaker/ writer's intent (insult) is encoded in a
tag
> question ( locutionary act), and the target audience's reaction
> (perlocutionary act) indicates that the speaker's intended message was
missed
> altogether since the intended audience focussed, instead, on the syntactic
> presentation (via the issue of the question mark).
>
> The syntactic form, then, does not necessarily reflect the intended
> function--that is, specifically in the case of indirect speech acts, the
> two--form and function--are  independent of each other; thus, I agree with
> the intended listener that a question mark should have been used.
>                         PAT!