Volume 25, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In corpus pragmatics, most of the research into speech acts still tends to be limited to working with the original, highly abstract, speech-act taxonomies devised by ordinary language philosophers like Austin and Searle. The aim of this article is to illustrate how the use of such restricted taxonomies may lead to oversimplified or potentially misleading impressions regarding the communicative functions expressed in spoken interaction, and to demonstrate how a more elaborate taxonomy, the DART taxonomy (Weisser, 2018), may help us gain better insights into the pragmatic strategies that occur in dialogues. To this end, I will draw on a small sample of dialogues, both from a task-oriented domain and unconstrained interaction, and contrast selected speech-act categorisations on the basis of Searle’s and the DART taxonomy, demonstrating the advantages that arise from using a more fine-grained taxonomy to describe complex verbal exchanges.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adolphs, S.
    (2008) Corpus and Context: Investigating Pragmatic Functions in Spoken Discourse. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.30
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.30 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, K.
    (2018) Corpus pragmatics: From form to function. In W. Bublitz , A. Jucker , & K. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Methods in Pragmatics (pp.555–585). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen, J. , & Core, M.
    (1997) Draft of DAMSL: Dialog Act Markup in Several Layers. https://www.cs.rochester.edu/research/speech/damsl/RevisedManual/node1.html
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin, J. L.
    (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bach, K. , & Harnish, R.
    (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ballmer, T. , & Brennenstuhl, W.
    (1981) Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑67758‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67758-8 [Google Scholar]
  7. De Felice, R. , Darby, J. , Fisher, A. , & Peplow, D.
    (2013) A classification scheme for annotating speech acts in a business email corpus. ICAME Journal, 37, 71–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Flowerdew, J.
    (1990) Problems of speech act theory from an applied perspective. Language Learning, 40(1), 79–105. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1990.tb00955.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00955.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Godfrey, J. , & Holliman, E.
    (1997) Switchboard-1 Release 2 (LDC97S62). Linguistic Data Consortium. https://catalog.ldc.upenn.edu/LDC97S62
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gunderson, K.
    (Ed.) (1975) Language, Mind and Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. International Organization for Standardization (2012)
    International Organization for Standardization (2012). Language resource management: Semantic annotation framework (SemAF): Part 2: Dialogue acts (ISO Standard No. 24617-2:2012). https://www.iso.org/standard/51967.html
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jucker, A.
    (2009) Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(8), 1611–1635. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. Jucker, A. , & Smith, S.
    (1998)  And people just you know like ‘wow’: Discourse markers as negotiation strategies. In A. Jucker & Y. Ziv (Eds.), Discourse Markers: Description and Theory (pp.171–201). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.57.10juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.10juc [Google Scholar]
  14. Kallen, J. , & Kirk, J.
    (2012) SPICE-Ireland: A User’s Guide. Queen’s University Belfast, Trinity College Dublin, and Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kohnen, T.
    (2015) Speech acts: A diachronic perspective. In K. Aijmer , & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.52–83). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Leech, G. , & Weisser, M.
    (2013) The SPAADIA Annotation Scheme. martinweisser.org/publications/SPAADIA_Annotation_Scheme.pdf
  17. Leech, G. , Weisser, M. , Wilson, A. , & Grice, M.
    (2000) Survey and guidelines for the representation and annotation of dialogue. In D. Gibbon , I. Mertins , & R. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of Multimodal and Spoken Language Systems (pp.1–101). Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. McKaughan, D.
    (2012) Speech acts, attitudes, and scientific practice: Can Searle handle ‘Assuming for the sake of Hypothesis’?Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(1), 88–106. 10.1075/pc.20.1.04mck
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.1.04mck [Google Scholar]
  19. Milà-Gracia, A.
    (2018) Pragmatic annotation for a multi‑layered analysis of speech acts: A methodological proposal. Corpus Pragmatics, 2(3), 265–287. 10.1007/s41701‑018‑0037‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0037-z [Google Scholar]
  20. O’Keeffe, A.
    (2018) Corpus-based function-to-form approaches. In W. Bublitz , A. Jucker , & K. Schneider , Handbook of Pragmatics: Methods in Pragmatics (pp.587–618). De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Schiffrin, D.
    (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  22. Searle, J.
    (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1975) A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge (pp.344–369). University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  25. Searle, J. R.
    (1991) Meaning, intentionality, and speech acts. In E. Lepore , & R. Van Gulick (Eds.), John Searle and his Critics (pp.81–102). Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Searle, J.
    (2002) Conversation. In J. Searle , Consciousness and Language (pp.180–202). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511606366.012
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606366.012 [Google Scholar]
  27. Thomas, J.
    (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Weisser, M
    (2010)Annotating Dialogue Corpora Semi-Automatically: A Corpus-Linguistic Approach to Pragmatics. [Habilitation (professorial) thesis]. University of Bayreuth.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Weisser, M.
    (2015a) Speech act annotation. In K. Aijmer & C. Rühlemann (Eds.), Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook (pp.84–113). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.005 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2015b) The Simple Corpus Tool (Version 1.5) [Computer software]. martinweisser.org/ling_soft.html#viewer
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2016a) DART: the Dialogue Annotation and Research Tool. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 355–388. 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0051
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0051 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2016b) Profiling agents & callers: A dual comparison across speaker roles and British vs. American English. In L. Pickering , E. Friginal , & S. Staples (Eds.), Talking at Work: Corpus-based Explorations of Workplace Discourse (pp.99–126). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑49616‑4_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49616-4_5 [Google Scholar]
  33. (2018) How to Do Corpus Pragmatics on Pragmatically Annotated Data: Speech Acts and Beyond. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.84
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.84 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): appliability; corpus pragmatics; speech act theory; speech-act taxonomy
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error