Abstract
This study compares directives in three different language corpora collected under different conditions: (1) spontaneous spoken data (taken from the British component of the International Corpus of English); (2) spontaneous written data (viz. business letters), and (3) elicited written data (collected through Discourse Completion Tasks). It is shown that there are significant differences between spontaneous and elicited data sets as well as between spoken and written natural data. These differences occur both in the so-called directive head act as well as in the modification strategies accompanying the head act (downgrading and upgrading), resulting in various levels of directness in the realization of directives in all three data sets. These results show the importance of quantitative comparative research not just across data collection methods, but also across discourse genres, based on corpora of authentic speech.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aijmer, K. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. London: Longman.
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles. Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Barron, A. (2008). The structure of requests in Irish English and English English. In A. Barron & K. P. Schneider (Eds.), Variational pragmatics. A focus on regional varieties of pluricentric languages (pp. 35–67). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Beebe, L. M., & Cummings, M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In J. Neu & S. M. Gass (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 65–86). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37–70). Norwood: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies. Norwood: Ablex.
Bodman, J., & Eisenstein, M. (1988). ‘May God increase your bounty’. The expression of gratitude in English by native and non-native speakers. Cross Currents, 15, 1–21.
Breuer, A., & Geluykens, R. (2007). Variation in British and American English requests. A contrastive analysis. In B. Kraft & R. Geluykens (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics and interlanguage English (pp. 107–126). Munich: Lincom Europa.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide; Spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Bangerter, A. (2004). Changing ideas about reference. In I. A. Noveck & D. Sperber (Eds.), Experimental pragmatics (pp. 25–49). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Economidou-Kogetsidis, M. (2013). Strategies, modification and perspective in native speakers’ requests. A comparison of WDCT and naturally occurring requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 53, 21–38.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies (pp. 221–247). Norwood: Ablex.
Farr, F., & O’Keeffe, A. (2002). Would as a hedging device in an Irish context: An intra-varietal comparison of institutionalised spoken interaction. In R. Reppen, S. Fitzmaurice, & D. Biber (Eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation (pp. 25–48). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Geluykens, R. (2011). Politeness in institutional discourse. Face-threatening acts in native and nonnative English business letters. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Geluykens, R., & Van Rillaer, G. (1995). Introducing ACID: The Antwerp corpus of institutional discourse. Interface, 10, 83–101.
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24, 90–121.
Hartford, B. S., & Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1992). Experimental and observational data in the study of interlanguage pragmatics. In L. F. Bouton & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (pp. 33–52). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Division of English as an International Language.
House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The functions of ‘please’ and ‘bitte’. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics. Requests and apologies (pp. 96–119). Norwood: Ablex.
House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine. Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157–185). The Hague: Mouton.
Jautz, S. (2008). Gratitude in British and New Zealand radio programmes. Nothing but gushing? In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Variational pragmatics. A focus on regional varieties of pluricentric languages (pp. 141–178). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Jucker, A. H. (2009). Speech act research between armchair, field and laboratory: The case of compliments. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1611–1635.
Jucker, A. H., Schneider, G., Taavitsainen, I., & Breustedt, B. (2008). Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In A. H. Jucker & T. Irma (Eds.), Speech acts in the history of English (pp. 273–294). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kasper, G. (2000). Data collection in pragmatics research. In H. Spencer-Oatey (Ed.), Culturally speaking. Managing rapport through talk across cultures (pp. 316–341). London/New York: Continuum.
Kohnen, T. (2008). Tracing directives through text and time: Towards a methodology of a corpus-based diachronic speech-act analysis. In A. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Speech acts in the history of English (pp. 295–310). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city. Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine (pp. 115–132). The Hague: Mouton.
McCarthy, M. (2003). Talking back: “Small” interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 36, 33–63.
Nelson, G., Wallis, S., & Aarts, B. (2002). Exploring natural language. Working with the British component of the international corpus of English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
O’Keeffe, A., & Adolphs, S. (2008). Response tokens in British and Irish discourse: Corpus, context and variational pragmatics. In K. P. Schneider & A. Barron (Eds.), Variational pragmatics. A focus on regional varieties in pluricentric languages (pp. 69–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pfingsthorn, J., & Flöck, I. (2014). Investigating and teaching pragmatics: A corpus-based approach. In W. Gehring & M. Merkl (Eds.), Englisch lehren, lernen, erforschen (pp. 155–174). Oldenburg: BIS-Verlag.
Sadock, J. M. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic.
Schauer, G. A., & Adolphs, S. (2006). Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences, and pedagogy. System, 34, 119–134.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Speech acts, Vol. 3, pp. 59–82). New York: Academic.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23.
Trosborg, A. (1994). Interlanguage pragmatics. Requests, complaints and apologies. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vine, B. (2009). Directives at work: Exploring the contextual complexity of workplace requests. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1395–1405.
Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspective: A reader. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 117–124.
Yuan, Y. (2001). An inquiry into empirical pragmatics data-gathering methods. Written DCTs, oral DCTs, field notes, and natural conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 271–292.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Flöck, I., Geluykens, R. (2015). Speech Acts in Corpus Pragmatics: A Quantitative Contrastive Study of Directives in Spontaneous and Elicited Discourse. In: Romero-Trillo, J. (eds) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2015. Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17948-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17948-3_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17947-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17948-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)