Skip to main content
Log in

Indirect Speech Acts

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we address several puzzles concerning speech acts,particularly indirect speech acts. We show how a formal semantictheory of discourse interpretation can be used to define speech actsand to avoid murky issues concerning the metaphysics of action. Weprovide a formally precise definition of indirect speech acts, includingthe subclass of so-called conventionalized indirect speech acts. Thisanalysis draws heavily on parallels between phenomena at the speechact level and the lexical level. First, we argue that, just as co-predicationshows that some words can behave linguistically as if they're `simultaneously'of incompatible semantic types, certain speech acts behave this way too.Secondly, as Horn and Bayer (1984) and others have suggested, both thelexicon and speech acts are subject to a principle of blocking or ``preemptionby synonymy'': Conventionalized indirect speech acts can block their`paraphrases' from being interpreted as indirect speech acts, even ifthis interpretation is calculable from Gricean-style principles. Weprovide a formal model of this blocking, and compare it withexisting accounts of lexical blocking.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Asher, N.: 1993, Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N.: 1999, ‘Discourse Structure and the Logic of Conversation’, in K. Turner (ed.) Current Research in the Semantics Pragmatics Interface.

  • Asher, N., J. Busquets and D. Hardt: 1997, ‘Discourse Parallelism, Scope, and Ellipsis’, in S. Peters and H. de Swart (eds.), Proceedings of SALT 7, Stanford, CA.

  • Asher, N. and A. Lascarides: 1995, ‘Lexical Disambiguation in a Discourse Context’, Journal of Semantics 12(1), 69-108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. and A. Lascarides: 1998a, ‘Questions in Dialogue’, Linguistics and Philosophy 23.3,237-309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. and A. Lascarides: 1998b, ‘Bridging’, Journal of Semantics 15,83-113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. and A. Lascarides: 1998c, ‘The Semantics and Pragmatics of Presupposition’, Journal of Semantics 15,239-299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher, N. and Y. Mao: 2000, ‘Reasoning with Negated Defaults in Commonsense Entailment’, Proceedings of Logic Colloquim, Paris, also submitted to Journal of Symbolic Logic.

  • Asher, N. and M. Morreau: 1991, ‘Commonsense Entailment: A Modal Theory of Nonmonotonic Reasoning’, Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI91), Sydney, pp.387-392.

  • Asher, N. and J. Pustejovsky; forthcoming, ‘The Metaphysics of Words in Context’, submitted to Journal of Logic, Language and Information, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Austin, J. L.: 1962, How to Do Things With Words, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K.: 1995, ‘Standardization vs. Conventionalization’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 18.6, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp.677-686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish: 1992, ‘How Performatives Work-A Reply to Searle’, Linguistics and Philosophy 15(1),93-110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish: 1979, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, L.: 1983, English Word-formation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, E. J. and A. Copestake: 1999, ‘Lexical Rules in Constraint-based Grammar’, Computational Linguistics 25(4),487-526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briscoe, E. J., A. Copestake, and A. Lascarides: 1996, ‘Blocking’, in P. St. Dizier and E. Viegas, Computational Lexical Semantics, Cambridge University Press, pp.273-302.

  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, P.: 1975, ‘The Synchronic and Diachronic Status of Conversational Implicature’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan(eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, pp.257-288.

  • Copestake, A. and E. J. Briscoe: 1995, Semi-productive Polysemy and Sense Extension, Journal of Semantics 12(1), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 15-67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davison, A.: 1975, ‘Indirect Speech Acts and What to Do with Them’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic Q. Press, New York, pp. 143-185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. and G. Gazdar: 1989, ‘Inference in DATR’, 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL-1989), Manchester, UK, pp. 66-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernando, T.: 1997, ‘Ambiguity under Changing Contexts’, Linguistics and Philosophy 20(6),575-606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzburg, J. and I. A. Sag: 2000, English Interrogative Constructions, CSLI Publications.

  • Gordon, D. and G. Lakoff: 1975, 'Conversational Postulates, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, pp. 83-106.

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, pp. 41-58.

  • Grosz, B. and C. Sidner: 1986, ‘Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse’, Computational Linguistics 12,175-204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosz, B. and C. Sidner: 1990, ‘Plans for Discourse’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.417-444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka, J.: 1983, The Game of Language, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, J. R.: 1985, On the Coherence and Structure of Discourse. Report No. CSLI-85-37, Center for the Study of Language and Information, October, 1985.

  • Hobbs, J. R., M. Stickel, D. Appelt, and P. Martin: 1993, ‘Interpretation as Abduction’, Artificial Intelligence 63(1-2),69-142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R.: 1989, A Natural History of Negation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, L. R. and S. Bayer: 1984, 'Short-circuited Implicature: A Negative Contribution, Linguistics and Philosophy 7(4),397-414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamp, H. and U. Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G.: 1973, ‘Some Thoughts on Transderivational Constraints’, in B. B. Kachru et al. (eds), Issues in Linguistics, University of Illinois Press, IL, pp.442-452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides, A. and N. Asher, 1993, ‘Temporal Interpretation, Discourse Relations and Commonsense Entailment’, Linguistics and Philosophy 16,437-493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascarides, A. and N. Asher: 1999, ‘Cognitive States, Discourse Structure and the Content of Dialogue’, in Proceedings from Amstelogue 1999, Amsterdam, May 4th-7th 1999, pp. 1-12.

  • Levinson, S. C.: 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.: 1969, Convention: A Philosophical Study, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, D. and J. Allen: 1990, ‘Discourse Processing and Commonsense Plans’, in P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.365-388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, W. C. and S. A. Thompson: 1987, ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Framework for the Analysis of Texts’, International Pragmatics Association Papers in Pragmatics, 1, 79-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R.: 1974, Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague, Reidel, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. L.: 1975, ‘Some Interactions of Syntax and Pragmatics’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, pp.289-303.

  • Morgan, J. L.: 1978, ‘Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts’, in Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, pp. 261-280.

  • Nunberg, G., I. A. Sag, and T. Wasow: 1994, ‘Idioms’, Language 70,491-538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrault, R.: 1990, ‘An Application of Default Logic to Speech Act Theory’, in P. R. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp.161-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, C. and I. Sag: 1994, Head Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes, University of Chicago Press, Stanford, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pustejovsky, J.: 1995, The Generative Lexicon, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, G., J. Carroll, and S. Warwick: 1991, ‘Multiple Default Inheritance in a Unification-based Lexicon’, 29th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL-91), Berkeley, CA, pp.215-221.

  • Sag, I. A. and T. Wasow: 1999, Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction, CSLI Publications.

  • Sadock, J.: 1974, Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts, Academic Press.

  • Searle, J.: 1969, Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J.: 1975, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics Volume 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, pp. 59-82.

  • Searle, J.: 1976, ‘The Classification of Illocutionary Acts’, Language and Society 5, pp. 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerberg, K.: 1990, ‘Validity and Satisfaction in Imperative Logic’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 31(2),203-221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderveken, D.:1990, Meaning and Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Asher, N., Lascarides, A. Indirect Speech Acts. Synthese 128, 183–228 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010340508140

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010340508140

Keywords

Navigation