Cover not available

In:Handbook of Pragmatics: 26th Annual Installment
Edited by Sigurd D’hondt, Pedro Gras, Mieke Vandenbroucke and Frank Brisard
[Handbook of Pragmatics 26] 2023
► pp. 67–93

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Directives (with a special emphasis on requests)

 | KU Leuven
Published online: 16 October 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.26.dir1
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is a directive?
    • 2.1Definitions in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions
    • 2.2Definitions in terms of graded membership
    • 2.3Provisional conclusion
  • 3.Subtypes of directives
    • 3.1Definitions in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions
    • 3.2Definitions in terms of graded membership
    • 3.3Provisional conclusion
  • 4.Directives as face-threatening speech acts
  • 5.Requests and pre-requests
  • 6.Requests as speech events
  • 7.The social effectiveness of directives
  • 8.Conclusion, recent developments and future directions
  • Notes
  • References
References (63)
References
Alston, William P. 2000. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, and Robert M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ball, Brian. 2014. “Speech acts: Natural or normative kinds? The case of assertion.” Mind and Language 29: 336–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bara, Bruno G., and Maurizio Tirassa. 2000. “Neuropragmatics: Brain and communication.” Brain and Language 71: 10–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and Gabriele Kasper (eds). 1989. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boux, Isabella, Rosario Tomasello, Luigi Grisoni and Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2021. “Brain signatures predict communicative function of speech production in interaction.” Cortex 135: 127–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caballero, Jonathan, Nikos Vergis, Xiaoming Jiang and Marc D. Pell. 2018. “The sound of im/politeness.” Speech Communication 102: 39–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2014. “Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an anatomy of impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 25: 349–367. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. Available online at [URL]
Decock, Sofie, and llse Depraetere. 2018. “(In)directness and complaints: A reassessment.” Journal of Pragmatics 132: 33–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depraetere, Ilse, Sofie Decock and Nicolas Ruytenbeek. 2021. “Linguistic (in)directness in Twitter complaints : A contrastive analysis of railway complaint interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 171: 215–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egorova, Natalia, Friedemann Pulvermüller and Yury Shtyrov. 2014. “Neural dynamics of speech act comprehension: An MEG study of naming and requesting.” Brain Topography 27: 375–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2014. “Human agency and the infrastructure for requests.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 35–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Francik, Ellen P., and Herbert H. Clark. 1985. “How to make requests that overcome obstacles to compliance.” Journal of Memory and Language 24: 560–568. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frank, Robert H. 1988. Passions within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions. New York: Norton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freytag, Vera. 2020. Exploring Politeness in Business Emails: A Mixed-Methods Analysis. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1986. “What makes some indirect speech acts conventional?” Journal of Memory and Language 25: 181–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1972. “Models of the interaction of language and social life.” In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans, and Barbara Partee. 1995. “Prototype theory and compositionality.” Cognition 57: 129–191. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2009. “Illocutionary forces and what is said.” Mind and Language 24: 122–138. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1992. “Activity types and language.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives.” In Questions: Formal, Functional, and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 11–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth G. 1984. Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, Beth, and Joyce Neu. 2006. “My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining.” In Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language, ed. by Susan M. Gass and Joyce Neu, 191–216. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Halloran, Kay L., Sabine Tan and Marissa, K. L. E. 2014. “Multimodal pragmatics.” In Pragmatics of Discourse, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider and Anne Barron, 239–268. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Olshtain, Elite, and Liora Weinbach. 1993. “Interlanguage features of the speech act of complaining.” In Interlanguage Pragmatics, ed. by Gabriele Kasper and Shoshana Blum-Kulka, 108–122. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, Lorena. 2013. “Illocutionary constructions: (Multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links.” Language and Communication 33: 128–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez Hernández, Lorena, and Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza. 2002. “Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reddy, Michael. 1979. “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language.” In Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 164–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rohrer, Tim. 2007. “Embodiment and experientialism.” In Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts and Hubert Cuyckens, 25–47. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas. 2017a. “The comprehension of indirect requests: Previous work and future directions.” In Semantics and Pragmatics: Drawing a Line, ed. by Ilse Depraetere and Raphael Salkie, 293–322. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2017b. The Mechanics of Indirectness: A Case Study of Directive Speech Acts. PhD dissertation, Université libre de Bruxelles.
. 2019. “Lexical and morpho-syntactic modification of student requests: An empirical contribution to the study of (im)politeness in French e-mail speech acts.” Lexique 24: 29–47.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Indirect Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Marie Verschraegen and Sofie Decock. 2021. “Exploring the impact of platforms’ affordances on the expression of negativity in online hotel reviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 186: 289–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, vol. 1., ed. by Gail Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1980. “Preliminaries to preliminaries: ‘Can I ask you a question?’” Sociological Inquiry 50: 104–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1975. “Indirect speech acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 59–82. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. “Common ground.” Linguistics and Philosophy 25: 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Rosario. 2023. “Linguistic signs in action: The neuropragmatics of speech acts.” Brain and Language 236: 105203. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, Rosario, Luigi Grisoni, Isabella Boux, Daniela Sammler and Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2022. “Instantaneous neural processing of communicative functions conveyed by speech prosody.” Cerebral Cortex 32: 4885–4901. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trivers, Robert L. 1971. “The evolution of reciprocal altruism.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 46: 35–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. Interlanguage Pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, and Apologies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trott, Sean, Stefanie Reed, Dan Kaliblotzky, Victor Ferreira and Benjamin Bergen. 2023. “The role of prosody in disambiguating English indirect requests.” Language and Speech 66: 118–142. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Ackeren, Markus J., Daniel Casasanto, Harold Bekkering, Peter Hagoort and Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer. 2012. “Pragmatics in action: Indirect requests engage theory of mind areas and the cortical motor network.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24: 2237–2247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel. 1990. Meaning and Speech Acts, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vásquez, Camila. 2011. “Complaints online: The case of TripAdvisor.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1707–1717. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, Traci. 2013. “Requests.” In Handbook of Pragmatics: Pragmatics of Speech Actions, ed. by Marina Sbisà and Ken Turner, 445–466. Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Ruytenbeek, Nicolas & Thomas Holtgraves
2025. A study of linguistic mitigation, writer empathy and recipient personality in requesting and bringing bad news via email. Journal of Pragmatics 238 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas
2024. Indirectness. In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ], ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue