Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and its Interfaces as related to the Expression of Intention
Edited by István Kecskés
[Pragmatics & Cognition 26:1] 2019
► pp. 61–84

What is an indirect speech act?

Reconsidering the literal force hypothesis

| Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
The notion of an indirect speech act is at the very heart of cognitive pragmatics, yet, after nearly 50 years of orthodox (Searlean) speech act theory, it remains largely unclear how this notion can be explicated in a proper way. In recent years, two debates about indirect speech acts have stood out. First, a debate about the Searlean idea that indirect speech acts constitute a simultaneous realization of a secondary and a primary act. Second, a debate about the reasons for the use of indirect speech acts, in particular about whether this reason is to be seen in strategic advantages and/or observation of politeness demands. In these debates, the original pragmatic conception of sentence types as indicators of illocutionary force seems to have been getting lost. Here, I go back to the seemingly outdated “literal force hypothesis” (see Levinson 1983: 263–264) and point out how it is still relevant for cognitive pragmatics.
Keywords: context, conventionalization, direct speech act, explicit performative, implicature, indirect speech act, literal force hypothesis, politeness, strategic speaker
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Non-neutral contexts
  • 3.Simultaneous realization of two speech acts
    • Type I
    • Type II
    • Type III
  • 4.Conventionalization
  • 5.Strategic speakers and politeness
  • 6.Speech acts and implicatures
  • 7.Coding of speech act potential in sentence types
  • 8.The problem of explicit performatives
  • 9.Experimental evidence
  • 10.Summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 March 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19009.mei
References (77)
References
Allan, Keith. 2006. Clause-type, primary illocution, and mood-like operators in English. Language Sciences 28(1). 1–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1993. Satzmodus. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, vol. 21, 1006–1029. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas & Alex Lascarides. 2001. Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128(1–2). 183–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1975. Performatives are statements too. Philosophical Studies 28(4). 229–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1992. How performatives really work: A reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy 15(1). 93–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bara, Bruno. 2010. Cognitive pragmatics: The mental process of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2012. From modal particle to interrogative marker: A study of German denn . In Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecilia Poletto (eds), Functional heads: Papers presented to Guglielmo Cinque on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 13–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertolet, Rod. 1994. Are there indirect speech acts? In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 335–349. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2017. On the arguments for indirect speech acts. Philosophia 45(2). 533–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clapp, Lenny. 2009. The rhetorical relations approach to indirect speech acts. Pragmatics & Cognition 17 (1). 43–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dascal, Marcelo. 1994. Speech act theory and Gricean pragmatics: Some differences of detail that make a difference. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 323–334. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2018. Irony, deception and humour: Seeking the truth about overt and covert untruthfulness. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita & Jörg Meibauer (eds). 2016a. Satztypen und Konstruktionen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016b. Richtig gut, das Paper! Satz, non-sententiale/ unartikulierte Konstituente, Konstruktion? In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 296–325. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016c. Satztyp und/oder Konstruktion? In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 1–22. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita, Jörg Meibauer & Petra Schumacher (eds). 2012. What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Speech act assignment. In Aravind K. Joshi, Ivan A. Sag & Bonnie L. Webber (eds.), Elements of discourse understanding, 64–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1986. What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language 25(2). 181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gretsch, Petra. 2013. Satztyp und Spracherwerb. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen, 815–845. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1989. Logic and conversation. In Paul Grice, Studies in the way of words, 22–40. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Groefsema, Marjolein. 1992. ‘Can you pass the salt?’: A short-circuited implicature. Lingua 87(1). 103–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles. 1987. Imperatives. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye. 2011. Imperatives. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 21, 1785–1804. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Harnish, Robert M. 1982. Katz as Katz can. The Journal of Philosophy 79(3). 168–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Mood, meaning and speech acts. In Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.), Foundations of speech act theory: Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, 407–459. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
1997. Performatives and standardization: A Progress Report. In Eckard Rolf (ed.), Pragmatik: Implikaturen und Sprechakte (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 8/1997), 161–175. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Are performative utterances declarations? In Günther Grewendorf & Georg Meggle (eds.), Speech Acts, mind, and social reality: Discussions with John R. Searle, 41–54. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Performatives as constatives vs. declarations. In Frank Brisard, Michael Meeuwis & Bart Vandenabeele (eds.), Seduction, Community, Speech: A Festschrift for Herman Parret, 43–74. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2012. The Oxford dictionary of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2016. Satztypkonstruktionen und Satztypsensitivität. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 23–71. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jary, Mark. 2013. Are explicit performatives assertions? Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2). 207–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2019. Rethinking being Gricean: New challenges for metapragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 1451. 15–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1977. Propositional structure and illocutionary force: A study of the contribution of sentence meaning to Speech Acts. Hassocks: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Magda. 2013. Satztyp und Semantik. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen, 680–711. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Keith Allan & Kasia Jaszczolt (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 169–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2011. Questions. In Klaus von Heusinger, Claudia Maienborn & Paul Portner (eds), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning, Vol. 21, 1742–1784. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lee, James L. & Steven Pinker. 2010. Rationales for indirect speech: the theory of strategic speaker. Psychological Review 117(3). 785–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leezenberg, Michiel. 2006. Gricean and Confucian pragmatics: A contrastive analysis. Journal of Foreign Languages 2006 (November), 2–21.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie & Michael Stone, M. 2015. Imagination and convention: Distinguishing grammar and inference in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lepore, Ernie & Michael Stone. 2018. Explicit indirection. In Daniel Fogal, Daniel W. Harris, & Matt Moss (eds), New work on Speech Acts, 360–383. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGowan, Mary Kate, Shan Shan Tam & Margaret Hall. 2009. On indirect speech acts and linguistic communication. Philosophy 84(4). 495–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 1986. Rhetorische Fragen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. What is a context? Theoretical and empirical evidence. In Rita Finkbeiner, Jörg Meibauer & Petra B. Schumacher (eds), What is a context? Linguistic approaches and challenges, 9–32. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Satztyp und Pragmatik. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), Satztypen des Deutschen, 711–736. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann, H. (eds). 2013a. Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann. 2013b. Kontroversen in der Forschung zu Satztyp und Satzmodus. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds.): Satztypen des Deutschen, 1–19. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Peter Cole (ed.), Pragmatics, 261–280. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, Allen. 1979. Indirect speech acts are not strictly conventional. Linguistic Inquiry 10(2). 353–356.Google Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2016. Satztyp und kommunikative Intention. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 406–432. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2007. The evolutionary social psychology of off-record indirect speech acts. Intercultural Pragmatics 4(4). 437–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Indirect speech, politeness, deniability, and relationship negotiation: Comment on Marina Terkourafi’s “The puzzle of indirect speech”. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2866–2868. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak & James J. Lee. 2008. The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(3). 833–838. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2009. Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Recanati, François. 1987. Meaning and force: The pragmatics of performative utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reimer, Marga. 1995. Performative utterances: A reply to Bach and Harnish. Linguistics and Philosophy 18(6). 655–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1999. On sentence types in german: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4 (2). 195–236.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2017. The comprehension of indirect requests: Previous work and future directions. In Ilse Depraetere & Raphael Salkie (eds), Semantics and pragmatics: Drawing a line, 293–323. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Ekaterina Ostashchenko & Mikhail Kissine. 2017. Indirect request processing, sentence types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics 1191. 46–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, 155–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979. Indirect speech acts. In John R. Searle, Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of Speech Acts, 3–57. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John Rogers. 1989. How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12(5). 535–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Amy M. & Gregory L. Murphy. 1993. Can you answer a question for me? Processing indirect speech acts. Journal of Memory and Language 32(2). 211–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2018. Speech Acts and clause types: English in a cross-linguistic context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sökeland, Werner. 1980. Indirektheit von Sprechhandlungen: Eine linguistische Untersuchung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soltys, Jessica, Marina Terkourafi & Napoleon Katsos. 2014. Disentangling politeness theory and the strategic speaker approach. Intercultural Pragmatics 11(1). 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 105–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2011a. The puzzle of indirect speech. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2861–2865. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Why indirect speech is not a natural default: Rejoinder to Steven Pinker’s ‘Indirect Speech, Politeness, Deniability, and Relationship Negotiation’. Journal of Pragmatics 43(11). 2869–2871. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Re-assessing the speech act schema: Twenty-first century reflections. International Review of Pragmatics 5(2). 197–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The importance of being indirect: A new nomenclature for indirect speech acts. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 281: 45–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, Tim. 2010. Context. In Louise Cummings (ed.), The Pragmatics encyclopedia, 74–75. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zufferey, Sandra. 2015. Acquiring pragmatics: Social and cognitive perspectives. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Ackermann, Tanja
2023. Mitigating strategies and politeness in German requests. Journal of Politeness Research 19:2 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
Boux, Isabella P., Konstantina Margiotoudi, Felix R. Dreyer, Rosario Tomasello & Friedemann Pulvermüller
2023. Cognitive features of indirect speech acts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 38:1 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Meibauer, Jörg
2023. On commitment to untruthful implicatures. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
TROTZKE, ANDREAS & LAURA REIMER
2023. Comprehending non-canonical and indirect speech acts in German. Journal of Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Becker, Matthias J., Laura Ascone & Hagen Troschke
2022. Antisemitic comments on Facebook pages of leading British, French, and German media outlets. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9:1 DOI logo
Podosky, Paul-Mikhail Catapang
2022. Agency, Power, and Injustice in Metalinguistic Disagreement. The Philosophical Quarterly 72:2 ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo
Becker, Matthias J.
2021. Antisemitism and Language. In Antisemitism in Reader Comments, ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Becker, Matthias J.
2021. Theory and Method. In Antisemitism in Reader Comments, ► pp. 33 ff. DOI logo
Finkbeiner, Rita
2021. Sprechakttheoretische Überlegungen zur Typographie – am Beispiel von Presseüberschriften. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 49:2 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 september 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.