Advertisement

Sociocognitive vs. Structural Issues

  • Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 21)

Abstract

This chapter revolves around three topics: social, cognitive, and structural issues of indirect reporting. Regarding the social issues, this chapter discusses Goffman’s dramaturgical sociology and Grice’s Cooperative Principle. As related to cognitive aspects, Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory and its relation to indirect reports are discussed, where it is argued that indirect reports are cases of ostensive behaviour because, by reporting others, the reporting speaker has an intention in mind that needs to be communicated as clearly as possible. Moreover, it is argued that indirect reports are strongly influenced by individuals’ appraisals. Both the hearer and the reporting speaker participate in indirect reports based on their appraisals of the event (indirect reporting forms a bridge between the molecular and molar way of viewing emotion). Likewise, some structural features of indirect reporting are elaborated in this chapter (issues such as ‘complementiser that’, verbs of propositional attitude, modes of representation, etc.). This chapter concludes that it is unfair to approach the indirect report merely as a speech act being directed only by restricted syntactic and semantic rules. Indirect reports are complex language games, to refer to the words of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Keywords

Appraisal theory Dramaturgical sociology Emotion Individual differences Mixed game model Relevance theory Verbs of propositional attitude 

References

  1. Apostel, L. (1980). De l’ intérrogation en tant qu’ action. Langue Française, 52, 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attardo, S. (1997). Locutionary and perlocutionary cooperation: The perlocutionary cooperative principle. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 753–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, J. (2018). Intuitions and the semantics of indirect discourse. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 99–108). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bollobas, E. (1981). Who’s afraid of irony? An analysis of uncooperative behaviour in Edward Elbee’s Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf? Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics and Cognition, 20(3), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capone, A. (2016). The pragmatics of indirect reports: Socio-philosophical considerations. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capone, A. (2018). On the social praxis of indirect reporting. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 3–20). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Cavell, S. (1988). Declining decline: Wittgenstein as a philosopher of culture. Inquiry, 31(3), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clift, R., & Holt, E. (2007). Introduction. In E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corliss, R. L. (1981). What determines a pragmatic implication? Southern Journal of Philosophy, 19, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings, L. (2016). Reported speech: A clinical pragmatic perspective. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 31–54). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davidson, D. (1968). On saying that. Synthese, 19, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, W. (2005). Non descriptive meaning and reference: An ideational semantics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeAngelis, W. J. (2007). Ludwig Wittgenstein-a cultural point of view: Philosophy in the darkness of this time. Cornwall, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  16. Elkaim, Y. (2015). The all-day fat-burning diet: The 5-day food-cycling formula that resets your metabolism to lose up to 5 pounds a week. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.Google Scholar
  17. Fish, A. (1999). Careless lives cost words: Catch 22: The uncooperative principle, ritualised conflict and subversion. Paper given at the Pragmatics and Stylistics Research Group, Lancaster University, Lancaster.Google Scholar
  18. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses: Une archéology des sciences humaines [The order of things: An archeology of the human sciences]. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  19. Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. García-Carpintero, M. (1994). Ostensive signs: Against the identity theory of quotation. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(5), 253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghita, A. (2001). Negotiation of irony in dialogue. In E. Weigand & M. Dascal (Eds.), Negotiation and power in dialogic interaction (pp. 139–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giorgi, A., & Haroutyunian, S. (2018). Indirect reports in Modern Eastern Armenian. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 277–298). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  24. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  25. Gregoromichelaki, E., & Kempson, R. (2016). Reporting, dialogue, and the role of grammar. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 115–150). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  27. Grice, H. P. (1989). Study in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Güldemann, T., & Von Roncador, M. (Eds.). (2002). Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2016). Indirect reports, information, and non-declaratives. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 553–572). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  31. Halliday, M. A. K. (2003a). On language and linguistics (Vol. 3). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  32. Halliday, M. A. K. (2003b). Introduction: On the ‘architecture’ of human language. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. Webster (Eds.), On language and linguistics (pp. 1–29). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  33. Horn, L. (1996). Presupposition and implicature. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The handbook of contemporary semantic theory (pp. 299–310). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  34. Itakura, H. (2018). Accuracy in reported speech: Evidence from masculine and feminine Japanese language. In A. Capone, M. Garcia-Carpintero, & A. Falzone (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics in the world languages (pp. 315–332). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Jaszczolt, K. M. (2016). The syntax-pragmatics merger: Belief reports in the theory of default semantics. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 383–404). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kasher, A. (1977). What is a theory of use? Journal of Pragmatics, 1(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kecskes, I. (2016). Indirect reporting in bilingual language production. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 9–30). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiefer, F. (1979). What do the conversational maxims explain? Linguisticae Investigationes, 3(1), 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lazarus, R. S. (1964). A laboratory approach to the dynamics of psychological stress. American Psychologist, 19, 400–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  41. Leech, G. N., & Thomas, J. (1990). Language, meaning and context: Pragmatics. In N. E. Collinge (Ed.), An encyclopedia of language (pp. 173–206). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Levinson, S. C. (2001). Presumptive meaning: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book.Google Scholar
  43. Li, C. N. (1986). Direct speech and indirect speech: A functional study. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect reports: Trends in linguistics, studies, and monographs (pp. 29–45). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2001). The social world as object of and influence on appraisal processes. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 221–232). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mohaghegh, J. B. (2010). New literature and philosophy of the Middle East: The chaotic imagination. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morady Moghaddam, M. (in press). Appraising and reappraising of compliments and the provision of responses: Automatic and non-automatic reactions. Pragmatics.Google Scholar
  47. Norrick, N. R. (2016). Indirect reports, quotation and narrative. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 93–113). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pratt, M. L. (1977). Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Pratt, M. L. (1981). The ideology of speech-act theory. Centrum, 1(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  50. Ritzer, G. (2007). Contemporary sociological theory and its classical roots: The basics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  51. Röhrig, S. (2010). The acquisition of scalar implicature. Göttingen, Germany: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roseman, I. J., & Craig, A. S. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 3–20). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Sampson, G. (1982). The economics of conversation: Comments on Joshi’s paper. In N. V. Smith (Ed.), Mutual knowledge. London: Academic.Google Scholar
  54. Seymour, M. (2016). Indirect discourse and quotation. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. L. Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics (pp. 355–376). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Smith, C., & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion (pp. 121–138). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Emotion and adaptation. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 609–637). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  57. Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weigand, E. (2010). Dialogue: The mixed game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weiland, N. (2016). Reporting practices and reported entities. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect reports and pragmatics: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 541–552). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wierzbicka, A. (1974). The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7, 267–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Windisch, U. (1990). Speech and reasoning in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mostafa Morady Moghaddam
    • 1
  1. 1.Shahrood University of TechnologyShahroodIran

Personalised recommendations