Situational Context and Illocutionary Force
In the last few years questions concerning the relations between social interaction and language have come to the fore in linguistic research. Language is more and more considered to be an instrument of interaction, after a long period of favouring the investigation of linguistic expressions used to describe facts in reality. Since language mainly was studied from the viewpoint of its descriptive function, the connection between language structure and conditions of communication has not been focussed on. Consequently, the nature of language has been viewed rather narrowly. In his criticism of Chomsky’s approach to linguistic theory Searle (1972) focussed attention on just this point.
KeywordsSituational Context Linguistic Analysis Symbolic Interaction Doxastic Attitude Motivational Attitude
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bierwisch, Manfred: 1980, in this volume, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
- Ehlich, Konrad: 1972, Jochen Rehbein, ‘Zur Konstitution pragmatischer Einheiten in einer Institution: Das Speiserestaurant,’ in D. Wunderlich (ed.), Linguistische Pragmatik, Frankfurt A. M.Google Scholar
- Leont’ev, A. A.: 1971, ‘Sprache, Sprechen, Sprechtätigkeit,’ translated and edited by C. Heeschen and W. Stölting, Stuttgart, Berlin, Köln, Main.Google Scholar
- Searle, John R.: 1969, Speech Acts, London.Google Scholar
- Searle, John R.: 1972, ‘Chomsky’s Revolution in Linguistics,’ New York Review of Books, June 29.Google Scholar
- Searle, John R.: 1975a, ‘A Classification of Illocutionary Acts,’ in Gunderson and Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 6. Minneapolis.Google Scholar
- Searle, John R.: 1975b, ‘Indirect Speech Acts,’ in Cole and Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 Speech Acts, New York, San Francisco, London.Google Scholar
- Wunderlich, Dieter: 1916, Studien zur Sprechakttheorie, Frankfurt A. M.Google Scholar