More Related Content
Recently uploaded (20)
Speech act sonia
- 1. Aim (1/4) Analyze the illocutionary impact of utterances in an explicit framework which combines - a grammar for sentences and - aÌýgrammar for conversation i. e. Ginzburg, A semantics for Interaction in Dialogue (to app.)
- 2. Aim (2/4) We assume that illocutionary import of linguistic expressions can be modeled in terms of types of update of Speaker’s Dialogue Gameboard (Ginzburg 1997). Such an assumption is not specific to our framework of reference (See i.a. dialogue acts analyzed as updates of the Conversational Score in Poesio & Traum 1998).
- 3. From Complex to Simple Speech Acts: a Bidimensional Analysis of Illocutionary Forces Claire BEYSSADE Jean-Marie MARANDIN
- 4. Aim (3/4) The features of linguistic expressions we are interested in are: (i) Clause types (e.g. declarative vs interrogative type) (1) a. Mary has arrived b. Has Mary arrived (ii) Prosodic structures (e.g. falling vs rising contour) (2) a. Marie est arrivée H L b. Marie est arrivée L H
- 5. Aim (4/4) (iii) Tag constructions (e.g. French tags n’est-ce pas , sans indiscrétion) (3) a. Marie est arrivée n’est-ce pas ‘ Marie has arrived, hasn’t she?’ b. Sans indiscrétion, Marie est arrivée ‘ Without being indiscreet, has Marie arrived?’ Here, we deal with (i) and (iii). As for the illocutionary import of contours (indeed, their lack of direct illocutionary import), we refer the reader to Beyssade et al. 2004, Beyssade & Marandin 2006, Marandin 2006.
- 6. Claim (i) Clause types and tags are constructions (ii) Constructions are associated with update instructions (iii) Main point: there are two types of update – Update of Speaker’s own commitment – Update of Speaker’s call on Addressee
- 7. Outline of the talk Part 1:ÌýUtterances and speech acts Part 2: Ginzburg’s framework and our revisions - Extension of the notion of commitment - Explicit notion of call on Addressee Part 3: Illocutionary analysis of: - Core clause types - (French) tags - Particular clause types (e.g. whimperatives) Conclusion - Types of utterances
- 8. Utterances & speech acts (1/3) •Ìý Polyfunctionality of core clause types : declarative, imperative, interrogative, exclamative ( Gazdar 1981) (4) A.: You will go home tomorrow (5) B.: a. How do you know? b. Yes. c. Okay. Polyfunctionality = no constraint upon the uptake by Addressee
- 9. Utterances & speech acts (2/3) • Monofunctionality of particular clause types , e. g. whimperative (6) a. Why don’t you be quiet! b. Veux-tu bien te taire ! will.you BIEN shut up Monofunctionality = uptake by Addressee is specified
Editor's Notes
- #2: In this talk, we present an analysis of the speech act dimension [daiMENsion] of utterances in Ginzburg’s framework A semantics for Interaction in Dialogue which combines a grammar for sentences and a grammar for conversation.
- #3: We assume that the illocutionary import of linguistic expressions can be modeled in terms of types of update of Speaker’s Dialogue Gameboard (Ginzburg 1997).
- #5: The features of linguistic expressions we are interested in are: Clause types (for example the contrast between the declarative type and the interrogative type illustrated in (1) (1) a. Mary has arrived b. Has Mary arrived
- #6: Tag constructions : we want to capture the contribution of tags to the speech act value of the utterances they are combined with. We study tags such as n ’ est-ce pas or sans indiscr é tion in French. In this talk, we will only deal with clause types and tags.
- #7: Essentially, our claims are
- #8: In the first part, we remind us two issues that constitute the premises of our approach. In the second part, we present our framework Ìý : Ginzburg ’ s Semantics and our revisions. In the third part, we present our proposals And we conclude with a taxonomy of possible utterance types.
- #9: First part It is commonly assumed (euSOUmd) that clause types (declarative, interrogative, imperative and exclamative Core Types) are «Ìý polyfunctional » . For example, Gazdar aptly observes that a declarative utterance such as: (4) You will go home tomorrow can be taken up as an assertion, a question or a directive, as is shown in (5) by the gamut of (possible uptake fORmulaz) that Addressee may use to acknowlege (eucNOledge) (4). B can reply to A : - ‘ How do you know ’ , which signals that he has interpreted (4) as a assertion, - or ‘ Yes ’ , which signals he has interpreted (4) as a query, - ‘ Okay ’ typically follows a diRECtive. (5) A.: You will go home tomorrow B.: a. How do you know? b. Yes. c. Okay. Polyfunctional means that the clause type does not put (pout) any CONStraint on the type of uptake by Addressee.
- #10: On the other hand, we know that there are linguistic features that limit the polyfunctionality of utterances. This is the case of certain clause constRUCtions. The prototypical example is the whimperative consTRUCtion as illustrated by (6a) in English or by a French equivalent (6b) (6) a. Why don ’ t you be quiet! b. Veux-tu bien te taire ! Monofunctional means that the clause type of (6) does constrain the uptake by Addressee. The interrogative utterances of (6) must be taken up as (kinds of) diRECtives Ìý : (6b) is a command in French, for eXAMple.