Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 25:4 (2020) ► pp.400–425

Speech acts in corpus pragmatics

Making the case for an extended taxonomy

ORCID logo | Independent researcher
In corpus pragmatics, most of the research into speech acts still tends to be limited to working with the original, highly abstract, speech-act taxonomies devised by ordinary language philosophers like Austin and Searle. The aim of this article is to illustrate how the use of such restricted taxonomies may lead to oversimplified or potentially misleading impressions regarding the communicative functions expressed in spoken interaction, and to demonstrate how a more elaborate taxonomy, the DART taxonomy (Weisser, 2018), may help us gain better insights into the pragmatic strategies that occur in dialogues. To this end, I will draw on a small sample of dialogues, both from a task-oriented domain and unconstrained interaction, and contrast selected speech-act categorisations on the basis of Searle’s and the DART taxonomy, demonstrating the advantages that arise from using a more fine-grained taxonomy to describe complex verbal exchanges.
Keywords: speech act theory, speech-act taxonomy, corpus pragmatics, appliability
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Speech act taxonomies
    • 2.1Austin and Searle’s taxonomies
    • 2.2A brief overview of the DART taxonomy
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Description of the data
    • 3.2Analysis methodology
  • 4.A contrastive analysis of Searle’s and the DART taxonomy
    • 4.1Assertives
    • 4.2Expressives
    • 4.3Directives
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19023.wei
References (33)
References
Aijmer, K. (2018). Corpus pragmatics: From form to function. In W. Bublitz, A. Jucker, & K. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 555–585). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Allen, J., & Core, M. (1997). Draft of DAMSL: Dialog Act Markup in Several Layers. [URL]
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K., & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ballmer, T., & Brennenstuhl, W. (1981). Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Felice, R., Darby, J., Fisher, A., & Peplow, D. (2013). A classification scheme for annotating speech acts in a business email corpus. ICAME Journal, 371, 71–105.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. (1990). Problems of speech act theory from an applied perspective. Language Learning, 40(1), 79–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, J., & Holliman, E. (1997). Switchboard-1 Release 2 (LDC97S62). Linguistic Data Consortium. [URL]
Gunderson, K. (Ed.). (1975). Language, Mind and Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (2012). Language resource management: Semantic annotation framework (SemAF): Part 2: Dialogue acts (ISO Standard No. 24617-2:2012). [URL]
Jucker, A. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–1635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A., & Smith, S. (1998). And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiation strategies. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Description and Theory (pp. 171–201). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kallen, J., & Kirk, J. (2012). SPICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Queen’s University Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, and Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. (2015). Speech acts: A diachronic perspective. In K. Aijmer, & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 52–83). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., & Weisser, M. (2013). The SPAADIA Annotation Scheme. [URL]
Leech, G., Weisser, M., Wilson, A., & Grice, M. (2000). Survey and guidelines for the representation and annotation of dialogue. In D. Gibbon, I. Mertins, & R. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of Multimodal and Spoken Language Systems (pp. 1–101). Kluwer.Google Scholar
Milà-Gracia, A. (2018). Pragmatic annotation for a multi‑layered analysis of speech acts: A methodological proposal. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(3), 265–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. (2018). Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In W. Bublitz, A. Jucker, & K. Schneider, Handbook of Pragmatics: Methods in Pragmatics (pp. 587–618). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1975). A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (pp. 344–369). University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
(1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1991). Meaning, intentionality, and speech acts. In E. Lepore, & R. Van Gulick (Eds.), John Searle and his Critics (pp. 81–102). Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (2002). Conversation. In J. Searle, Consciousness and Language (pp. 180–202). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2010). Annotating Dialogue Corpora Semi-Automatically: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Pragmatics. [Habilitation (professorial) thesis]. University of Bayreuth.Google Scholar
Weisser, M. (2015a). Speech act annotation. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp. 84–113). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b). The Simple Corpus Tool (Version 1.5) [Computer software]. [URL]
(2016a). DART: the Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Profiling agents & callers: A dual comparison across speaker roles and British vs. American English. In L. Pickering, E. Friginal, & S. Staples (Eds.), Talking at Work: Corpus-based Explorations of Workplace Discourse (pp. 99–126). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Ciambella, Fabio
2024. Teaching English as a Second Language with Shakespeare, DOI logo
Finkbeiner, Rita
2024. The pragmatics of headlines. Central issues and future research avenues. Journal of Pragmatics 222 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Meißner, Cordula
2023. Indikatormerkmale in metakommentierenden Sprechhandlungen thematisch strukturierter Interaktionen: Eine korpuspragmatische Untersuchung zur Beziehung zwischen Funktion und Form. In Digitale Pragmatik [Digitale Linguistik, 1], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Verdonik, Darinka
2023. Annotating dialogue acts in speech data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 144 ff. DOI logo
Fernández, Julieta
2022. Corpus linguistics in L2 pragmatics research. Applied Pragmatics 4:2 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.