Cover not available
Article published In:
Categorization in multilingual storytelling
Edited by Matthew T. Prior and Steven Talmy
[Pragmatics and Society 10:3] 2019
► pp. 452–469
General section

The importance of borrowing across disciplines

The anthropological notion of speech events

| Georgetown University (emer.)
Over the years, linguists have borrowed from other allied fields, including speech events from cultural anthropology, schema theory from psychology, speech acts from philosophy, and conversational strategies from rhetoric. In analyzing large and continuous chunks of conversational data, the first and most important of these borrowings is the speech event, for it sets the stage in which the other language elements are embedded and provides a useful sequence for analyzing everything else, including the conventional linguistic tools of the grammar and lexicon.
The present paper represents the optimal sequence of analysis as an Inverted Pyramid, starting with the speech event and then moving down the order to schemas, agendas, speech acts, conversational strategies, and finally to the grammar and lexicon that are embedded within each other. Two prominent criminal law investigations are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Inverted Pyramid approach for understanding this evidence.
Keywords: borrowing across disciplines, speech events, schema, agenda, speech acts, conversational strategies, Inverted Pyramid
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The evolving development of linguistics
  • 3.Speech events
  • 4.Analytical procedures: The DeLorean case and the ‘Inverted Pyramid’
  • 5.The case of Texas v. Clayton
    • 5.1The business transaction speech event
    • 5.2The campaign contribution speech event
    • 5.3The bribery speech event
    • 5.4The ambiguous “do”
    • 5.5The last ditch approach
  • 6.Summary
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 22 October 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18060.shu
References (35)
References
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bartlett, Frederic. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard & Charles Briggs. 1990. “Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life”. Annual Review of Anthropology 191: 59–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer (eds.). 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1972. “Discourse structure and human knowledge”. In Roy Freedle & John B. Carroll (eds.), Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge, 67–81. Washington, D.C.: V.H. Winston.Google Scholar
Comaroff, John. 1975. “Talking Politics: Oratory and Authority in a Tswana Chiefdom”. In M. Bloch (ed.), Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, 141–183. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Davison, Alice. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts and What to Do with Them”. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, 143–185. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1985. “Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse”. In Teun van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 193–230. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1972. “Introduction”. In John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 1–25. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1982. “Introduction: language and the communication of social identity”. In John Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 1–21. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. “On the Interactional Bases of Speech Community Membership”. In Gregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language, Social Interaction and Discourse Structures, Papers in honor of William Labov, 183–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hansell, Mark and Cheryl Ajirotutu. 1982. “Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings”. In John Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 85–94. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1964. “Toward Ethnographies of Communication”. American Anthropologist 66–6 (part 2) (1–34). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1972. “Models of interaction of language and the social life”. In John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. “Conceptual semantics and Cognitive Linguistics”. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 93–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kates, Carol. 1980. Pragmatics and Semantics: An Empiricist Theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan-Ochs, Elinor & Bambi Schieffelin. 1976. “Topic as discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults.” In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuipers, Joel. 1990. Power in Performance: The Creation of Textual Authority in Weyewa Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, David. 1980. “Schemata: the building blocks of cognition.” In R. J. Spiro (ed.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuy, Roger W. 1990. “Tape-recorded conversations”. In Paul Andrews and Marilyn Peterson (eds.), Criminal Intelligence Analysis, 117–148. Loomis, Calif.: Palmer Enterprises.Google Scholar
1993. Language Crimes. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1997. “Discourse clues to coded language in an impeachment hearing”. In Gregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1989. “Kamakke, Sunmakke, Kormakke; three types of Cuna speech event.” In Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, 263–282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuy, Roger W. 2005. Creating Language Crimes. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The Language of Bribery Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. The Language of Murder Cases. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Deceptive Ambiguity by Police and Prosecutors. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar