Setting Felicity Conditions and Deriving Logical Semantic Rules for the Commissive Speech Acts
##semicolon##
https://doi.org/10.25212/lfu.qzj.3.3.23##semicolon##
Speech Act, Felicity Conditions, Directives, Commissives Semantic Rules, illocutionary Force.پوختە
Speech act can be defined as a verbal action that takes place in the reality. This means by uttering a speech act, the speaker "does" something with his word. The speaker performs an activity that brings about a change in the world of reality. As for the felicity conditions, they have been defined as the criteria that must be fulfilled if the speech act is to achieve its purpose.
They are used to judge whether a certain utterance is a speech act, genuine speech act or none. This paper aims at setting some
felicity conditions for the commissive speech acts category in the light of the illocutionary force components that set by Searle
(1969 and 1983), Searle and Vanderveken (1985) as well as Vanderveken (1990 and 1994). It is hypothesized in this study
that once felicity conditions are established for the commissive speech acts category, a set of logical semantic rules can be
derived for determining the illocutionary forces indicating device of any commissive speech act. The procedure for achieving this
paper will be based on the theoretical review of what Searle and Vanderveken have done in this area. The basic conclusions the
study arrived at are setting some logical semantic rules for determining the illocutionary force indicating device of the
##plugins.generic.usageStats.downloads##
سەرچاوەکان
Aguilar, L. Machuca, M. (2008): Intentionality in the Speech Act and Reduction Phenomena, Barcelona: UniversitatAutonoma de Barcelona Press.
Al-Sanjary, L. A. N. (2006): Intentionality and Translation of LegalEnglish Verbs into Arabic: UNSC Resolutions: A Case Study, (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Mosul.
Al-Sulaimaan, M. M. D. (1997): A Study of Three Speech Acts: Promise, Threatand Warning in Three Shakespearean Tragedies with Reference to Their Realizations in Arabic. (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis), University of Mosul.
_____________________ (2002): “A Semantic Analysis of Arabic Expressive Verbs”. J. of College of Arts / Baghdad University, No. 61, pp. 84-109.
_____________________ (2016): Semantics and Pragmatics, Erbil: Haval Art Printing Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962): How to Do Things with Words, Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Blakemore, D. (1993): Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. (1998): Pragmatics and the Explicit/Implicit Distinction (Ph. D. Dissertation) University of London.
Cavell, S. (2002): Must We Mean What We Say? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (2000): Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, S. and Gillon, B. S. (2004): Semantics: A Reader, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
de Saussure, F. (1966): Course in General Linguistics: New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.
Eriskoon, O. (2001): The Pragmatic Language Functionality of Information System, Dalarna: Dalarna University Press.
Gass, S. and Neu, J. (eds.) (1996): Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, Berlin: Mouton de
Goddard, C. (1998): Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction, Oxford: University Press.
Hassan, J. M. and Al-Sulaimaan, M. M. D. (1998): " A Semantic Analysis of Arabic Commissive Verbs". Adab Al-Rafidayn, No. 31, pp. 1-28.
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (2008): Speech Acts in the History of English, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kadmon, M. (2001): Formal Pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Leech, G. (1980): Exploration in Semantics and Pragmatics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. (1983): Principles of Pragmatics, London: Longman Group Ltd.
Mey, J. L. (1993): Pragmatics: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Recanati, F. (2004): Literal Meaning, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, K. R. and Kasper, G. (2001): Pragmatics in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R.(1969): Speech Act Theory: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language,Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
“A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts”. In: K.Gunderson, (ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol.1. No. 2, pp.344-369.
__________(1983): Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R., Kiefer, F. and Bierwisch, M. (1980): Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics,Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
Searle, J.R.and D. Vanderveken (1985): Foundations of Illocutionary Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanderveken, D. (1990): Meaning and Speech Acts: Vol.1 Principles of Language Use, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.
Vanderveken, D. (1994):Principles of Speech Act Theory, New York: Routledge.
Verchueren, J.(1980): On Speech Act Verbs, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wierzbica, A. (1996): Semantics: Primes and Universals, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yule, G. (1996): Pragmatics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
##submission.downloads##
بڵاو کرایەوە
چۆنییەتی بەکارهێنانی سەرچاوە
ژمارە
بەش
##submission.license##
##submission.copyrightStatement##
##submission.license.cc.by-nc-sa4.footer##Qalaai Zanist Journal allows the author to retain the copyright in their articles. Articles are instead made available under a Creative Commons license to allow others to freely access, copy and use research provided the author is correctly attributed.
Creative Commons is a licensing scheme that allows authors to license their work so that others may re-use it without having to contact them for permission
