[Lingtyp] optative sentences

Tue Aug 27 10:29:39 UTC 2024

Dear Jürgen and everybody,

on the one hand, questions like whether exclamations have illocutionary 
force may be decided /per definitionem/. 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.

I modestly surmise that, from this point of view, 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.

Also, exclamative sentences constitute a sentence type in many 
languages, beside the basic sentence types of declarative, directive and 
interrogative. However, there are performative verbs for these latter 
(as there are performative verbs for congratulations, excuses and 
thanks) , whilethere 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.

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.

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.

Best,
Christian
---------------------------------------------------------------

Am 25.08.24 um 15:55 schrieb Juergen Bohnemeyer:
>
> 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).
>
> On the classification developed by Searle (1976) and Searle & 
> Vanderveken (1985), these utterances would be ‘expressives’, which 
> Searle & Vanderveken define as follows:
>
> “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)
>
> 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.
>
> Best – Juergen
>
> Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language 
> in Society 5(1): 1-23.
>
> Searle, J. R. & D. Vanderveken. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary 
> logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>
> Juergen Bohnemeyer (He/Him)
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> University at Buffalo
>
> Office: 642 Baldy Hall, UB North Campus
> Mailing address: 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260
> Phone: (716) 645 0127
> Fax: (716) 645 3825
> Email: jb77 at buffalo.edu <mailto:jb77 at buffalo.edu>
> Web: http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/ 
> <http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jb77/>
>
> Office hours Tu/Th 3:30-4:30pm in 642 Baldy or via Zoom (Meeting ID 
> 585 520 2411; Passcode Hoorheh)
>
> There’s A Crack In Everything - That’s How The Light Gets In
> (Leonard Cohen)
>
> -- 
>
> *From: *Lingtyp <lingtyp-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf 
> of Christian Lehmann via Lingtyp <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Date: *Sunday, August 25, 2024 at 12:14
> *To: *lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org 
> <lingtyp at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *Subject: *[Lingtyp] optative sentences
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> 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:
>
> There is one type of utterances which communicate to the hearer that 
> the speaker _wants_ P. Like a command, they appeal to him to see to it 
> that P be realized. This is explicit in (1a).
>
> (1)(a) Please shut the window!
>
>     (b) The window should be shut.
>
> 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.
>
> There is another type of utterances which express that the speaker 
> _wishes_ P. They are exclamations which do not appeal to anybody for 
> fulfillment of P:
>
> (2)(a) If only Linda arrived in time!
>
>     (b) The devil take him!
>
> Sentences of type #2 are introduced by /utinam/ in Latin, /ojalá/ in 
> Spanish, and so forth. Such particles are not used in sentences of 
> type #1.
>
> Also, unfulfillable wishes (traditionally: irreal optative sentences) 
> are fine and common as type #2, but in type #1 produce utterances hard 
> to interpret.
>
> Here are my questions to you:
>
> ·Is there an established conceptual and terminological distinction 
> between these two types? How about (1) volitive and (2) optative?
>
> ·Does type #2 have an illocutionary force? Do exclamations have an 
> illocutionary force?
>
> -- 
>
> Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
> Rudolfstr. 4
> 99092 Erfurt
> Deutschland
>
> Tel.:
>
> 	
>
> +49/361/2113417
>
> E-Post:
>
> 	
>
> christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
>
> Web:
>
> 	
>
> https://www.christianlehmann.eu
>

-- 

Prof. em. Dr. Christian Lehmann
Rudolfstr. 4
99092 Erfurt
Deutschland

Tel.: 	+49/361/2113417
E-Post: 	christianw_lehmann at arcor.de
Web: 	https://www.christianlehmann.eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lingtyp/attachments/20240827/4ecc187f/attachment.htm>