1887
Volume 31, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The paper outlines an analysis of the act of commenting within the author’s Austin-inspired speech-act theoretical framework. The general lines of that framework are concisely expounded, and it is suggested that the act of commenting should be described as belonging to Austin’s Expositives. The preliminary problem whether the act of commenting is illocutionary at all (given the absence of a performative use of the verb “to comment”) is discussed, and it is argued that nothing stands in the way of analyzing it as illocutionary. Some difficulties that can be found in dealing with commenting as an illocutionary act, concerning the variable linguistic form and the diversity of functions of the utterances that can be taken to be comments, are illustrated and discussed within the theoretical framework adopted. The characterization of commenting as having (among others) also a specifically expositive illocutionary effect is illustrated. Finally, some open problems worthy of further discussion are highlighted.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24015.sbi
2025-01-17
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L.
    1975How to do things with words (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. 1979Philosophical papers. (3rd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/019283021X.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/019283021X.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finnegan
    (eds.) 1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Educational.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blum Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper
    1989 Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics. InShoshana Blum-Kulka, Juliane House & Gabriele Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, 1–34. New Jersey: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Brandom, Robert
    1994Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brinton, Laurel J.
    2008The comment clause in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  7. Eckardt, Regine
    2015The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004266735
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266735 [Google Scholar]
  8. Grice, H. Paul
    1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnson, Casey Rebecca
    2019 Investigating illocutionary monism. Synthese1961. 1151–1165. 10.1007/s11229‑017‑1508‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1508-7 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2023 Some varieties of illocutionary pluralism. InLaura Caponetto & Paolo Labinaz (eds.), Sbisà on speech as action, 121–141. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑22528‑4_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22528-4_6 [Google Scholar]
  11. Larrory-Wunder, Anne
    2021 Zur kommentativen Funktion von Ausrufesätzen. InAnne-Françoise Ehrhard-Macris & Gilbert Magnus (eds.), Text und Kommentieren im Deutschen, 179–193. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lewiński, Marcin
    2021 Illocutionary pluralism. Synthese1991. 6687–6714. 10.1007/s11229‑021‑03087‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03087-7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lewis, David
    1979 Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic81. 339–359. 10.1007/BF00258436
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00258436 [Google Scholar]
  14. Posner, Roland
    1972Theorie des Kommentierens: eine Grundlagenstudie zur Semantik und Pragmatik. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 1980 Types of dialogue: The functions of commenting. Discourse Processes31. 381–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Potts, Christopher
    2005The logic of conventional implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Redder, Angelika
    2008 Functional pragmatics. InGerd Antos & Eija Ventola (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication, 133–178. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211399.1.133
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211399.1.133 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sbisà, Marina
    1984 On illocutionary types. Journal of Pragmatics81. 93–112. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90066‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90066-3 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2006 Speech acts without propositions?Grazer Philosophische Studien721. 155–178. 10.1163/18756735‑072001008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/18756735-072001008 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007 How to read Austin. Pragmatics171. 461–472.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2009 Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics51. 33–52. 10.2478/v10016‑009‑0003‑0
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2013a Locution, illocution, perlocution. InMarina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 25–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214383.25
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.25 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2013b Some remarks about speech act pluralism. InAlessandro Capone, Franco Lo Piparo & Marco Carapezza (eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy, 227–243. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑01011‑3_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_10 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2023Essays on speech acts and other topics in pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780192844125.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192844125.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2024Austinian themes: Illocution, action, knowledge, truth, and philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/9780191927096.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/9780191927096.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  26. Schneider-Mizony, Odile
    2021 Kommentar als Anschlusskommunikation, Informationserweiterung, oder didaktische Intention?InAnne-Françoise Ehrhard-Macris & Gilbert Magnus (eds.), Text und Kommentieren im Deutschen, 17–30. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1979Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  29. Searle, John R. & Daniel Vanderveken
    1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1977Text and context. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.24015.sbi
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): commenting; Expositives; illocution; J. L. Austin; speech acts
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