Cover not available
Part of
The Pragmatics of Adaptability
Edited by Daniel N. Silva and Jacob L. Mey
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 319] 2021
► pp. 37–54

Chapter 2
How do we adapt ourselves in performing an illocutionary act?

| Tokyo University of Science
The present chapter examines the idea that language users adapt to linguistic/societal conventions to communicate with each other by describing the mechanism in which they perform an illocutionary act and engage in a communicative exchange. Austin’s ([1962]1975) felicity conditions are scrutinized to show how a speaker executes her/his own illocutionary act by utilizing and adapting to linguistic/societal conventions that specify illocutionary acts, their effects, the addressers, the addressees, and the contexts. There are linguistic/societal conventions which allow/force a speaker to specify the social relationship between the speaker and the hearer, and/or (in)formality of the speech situation. This is illustrated by examining the act of apologizing in Japanese, in which honorific marking is grammaticalized. There are also linguistic/societal conventions which specify illocutionary effects in discourse, which are analyzed as effects of expositive-type illocutionary acts (Austin ([1962]1975).
Keywords: adaptation, illocutionary acts, expositives, J. L. Austin, discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The speaker/the addresser, the hearer/the addressee and the circumstances of the speech situation/the context
  • 3. Different linguistic/societal conventions of performing illocutionary acts
  • 4.Illocutionary acts in discourse
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 March 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.319.02ois
References (18)
References
Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press [First edition 1962]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press [First edition 1961]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carroll, John M. 1991. Designing Interaction: Psychology at the Human-Computer Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1981. “On Apologizing.” In Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 259–271. The Hague and New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ide, Risako. 1998. “Thank You for Your kindness: Japanese Interactional Ritual in Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 29(5): 509–529. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd edition). Oxford & Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2009. “Adaptability in Human-computer Interaction.” In Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (2nd edition), ed. by Jacob L. Mey, 7–13. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Oishi, Etsuko. 2011. “How Are Speech Acts Situated in Context?” In Context and Contexts: Parts Meet Whole?, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Etsuko Oishi, 181–204. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Apologies.” In Handbooks of Pragmatics, Volume 2: Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner, 499–530. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Discursive Functions of Evidentials and Epistemic Modals.” In Certainty-uncertainty – and the Attitudinal Space in Between, ed. by Sibilla Cantarini, Werner Abraham and Elisabeth Leiss, 239–262. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Follow-Ups as Speech Acts in Mediated Political Discourse.” In The Dynamics of Political Discourse: Forms and Functions of Follow-Ups, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Lawrence N. Berlin, 33–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Austin’s Speech Acts and Mey’s Pragmemes.” In Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use, ed. by Keith Allan, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, 335–350. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oishi, Etsuko and Fetzer, Anita. 2016. “Expositives in Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 96: 49–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olshtain, Elite and Andrew D. Cohen. 1983. “Apology: A Speech Act Set.” In Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition, ed. by Nessa Wolfson and Elliot Judd, 18–35. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Owen, Marion. 1983. Apologies and Remedial Interchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. Berlin; New York: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2002. “Cognition and Narrativity in Speech Act Sequences. In Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction, ed. by Anita Fetzer and Christiane Meierkord, 71–97. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar