Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 29:1 (2019) ► pp.107–132

Toward a pragmatic account and taxonomy of valuative speech acts

| University of Havana

This paper presents an account of value ascription as an illocutionary force, based on four claims: (1) that value ascription is a kind of illocutionary force, defining a specific kind of speech act, i.e. valuative speech acts (VSAs); (2) that the point of VSAs is ascribing an axiological value to a referent; (3) that VSAs create a weak, inside-oriented truth commitment; and (4) that they are therefore more about the valuating subject than they are about the valuated object. This illocutionary force is described using criteria taken from contemporary speech act theory as well as others that have proven informative. This description results in a rich taxonomy of VSAs. This shows the viability and fruitfulness of a pragmatic account of value ascription, and it contributes to the development of speech act theory, specifically with regard to the distinction between primary and secondary illocutionary points, and the speech act taxonomy itself.

Keywords: value ascription, valuative speech act, appraisal, evaluation, illocutionary force, speech act theory, pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is valuating?
    • 2.1Value ascription is a kind of illocutionary force
    • 2.2The point of VSAs
    • 2.3The truth commitment of VSAs
    • 2.4So what are VSAs about?
  • 3.The valuative illocutionary force
    • 3.1Felicity conditions
    • 3.2Degree of strength of the IP
    • 3.3Mode of achievement
      • 3.3.1Speaker status
      • 3.3.2How the referent is considered
      • 3.3.3Value scales
      • 3.3.4Situational boundedness
    • 3.4Content conditions
    • 3.5Causal force
    • 3.6Impeachability
    • 3.7Summary: A typology of VSAs
  • 4.Conclusions: VSAs in speech act theory
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17045.won
References (34)
Austin, J. L.
1962 How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caballero Díaz, Leandro
2014 Semántica y diccionario. Havana: Ciencias Sociales.Google Scholar
Colbert, S., J. Stewart, C. Licht, T. Purcell, M. Bennet, and B. Julien
prods. 2018 The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. New York: CBS, January 24 2018.Google Scholar
Coley, John D., Patrick Shafto, Olga Stepanova, and Elizabeth Baraff
2005 “Knowledge and Category-Based Induction.” In Categorization Inside and Outside the Laboratory: Essays in Honor of Douglas L. Medin, ed. by W. Ahn, R. L. Goldstone, B. C. Love, A. B. Markman, and P. Wolff, 69–86. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dafoe, Willem
2018 Interview by Stephen Colbert. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, CBS, January 24 2018.Google Scholar
Gaffigan, Jim
2018 Interview by Seth Meyers. Late Night with Seth Meyers, NBC, January 24 2018.Google Scholar
Galbán Pozo, Ana María
1999 “Análisis dimensional de verbos con semántica valorativa en lengua alemana.” Masters thesis, University of Havana.Google Scholar
2003 “Aproximación al estudio de las macro-categorías semánticas modales (valoración, lealtad, certidumbre, interés, afectividad y expresividad) y su expresión a través de verbos de las lenguas española y alemana.” PhD diss., University of Havana.Google Scholar
González de Prado Salas, Javier, and Iván Milić
2018 “Recommending Beauty: Semantics and Pragmatics of Aesthetic Predicates.” Inquiry 61 (2): 198–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Mitchell
2017 “Speech Acts.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 edition), ed. by Edward N. Zalta. [URL]
Greimas, Algirdas J.
1966 Sémantique Structurale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A., and Iben Cannon
2004 “Category-based Induction: An Effect of Conclusion Typicality.” Memory & Cognition 32 (2): 235–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Van
2018 Interview by Seth Meyers. Late Night with Seth Meyers, NBC, January 24 2018.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally
2005 “Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates.” Language 81 (2): 345–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kölbel, M.
2003 “Faultless Disagreement.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1041: 55–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kudrow, Lisa, and Martin Short
2018 Interview by James Corden. The Late Late Show with James Corden, CBS, January 31 2018.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGowan, Rose
2018 Interview by Stephen Colbert. The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, CBS, January 31 2018.Google Scholar
Mirren, Helen
2018 Interview by Graham Norton. The Graham Norton Show, BBC Two, January 26 2018.Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2004 “Dialogue et Causalité : Force Causale, Actes de Langage et Enchaînement.” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 261: 67–85.Google Scholar
Oishi, Etsuko
2006 “Austin’s Speech Act Theory and the Speech Situation.” Esercizi Filosofici 11: 1–14.Google Scholar
Oteíza, Teresa
2017 “The Appraisal Framework and Discourse Analysis.” In The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, ed. by T. Bartlett, and G. O’Grady, 457–472. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina
2007 “How to Read Austin.” Pragmatics 17 (3): 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “The Austinian Conception of Illocution and its Implications for Value Judgments and Social Ontology.” Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics 16 (2): 619–631.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1975 “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.” In Language, Mind, and Knowledge, ed. by K. Gunderson, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Construction of Social Reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
2002 “Speech Acts, Mind, and Social Reality”. In Speech Acts, Mind, and Social Reality: Discussions with John R. Searle, ed. by G. Grewendorf, and G. Meggle, 3–16. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken
1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siebel, Mark
2002 “What Is an Illocutionary Point?” In Speech Acts, Mind, and Social Reality: Discussions with John R. Searle, ed. by G. Grewendorf, and G. Meggle, 125–139. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, Stephanie
2015 “Measurement Scales in Natural Language.” Language and Linguistics Compass 9 (1): 14–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulkan, M.
1992 Zur Klassification von Sprechakten. Tübigen. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamauchi, Takashi, and Arthur B. Markman
2000 “Inference Using Categories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 (3): 776–795.Google Scholar