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)
References
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