Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 9:2 (2018) ► pp.208–231

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

Why did Trump say “I hope you will let Flynn go” to Comey?

Pragmemes and socio-pragmatics (A Strawsonian analysis)

 | University of Messina
 | University of Messina
Published online: 28 June 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17024.cap
Abstract
In this paper, we analyse and discuss an utterance/pragmeme/pract proffered by US President Donald Trump and addressed to FBI Director Comey: ‘I hope you will let Flynn go’.
We consider the explicature of this utterance (‘I hope you will drop the Russian investigation concerning Flynn’) and its illocutionary and perlocutionary effects. We argue that while Republicans opt for an Austinian or Searlean analysis, in the attempt to deny that this utterance constituted an attempt to influence Comey, there are reasons for adopting a Strawsonian analysis, casting it in the framework of pragmemes, devised by Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Second edition)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, that frame a socio-pragmatic analysis of utterance interpretation within context. This analysis shows, Trump illicitly tried to persuade Comey to drop the Russian investigation, and therefore attempted to interfere with the judiciary system. A reasoned case can be made for saying that Trump had the intention of interfering with America’s federal court system through this utterance.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The focus of this paper
  • 3.Pragmemes: An alternative to Searle’s speech act theory
  • 4.Trump versus Comey
  • 5.Denying the speech act of requesting
  • 6.Corroborating views by Tannen (2017)
  • 7.What the notion of agency has to tell us about this case
  • 8.Actively looking for context
  • 9.An alternative account
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (31)
References
Allan, Keith, Alessandro Capone, and Istvan Kecskes, eds. 2016. Pragmemes and theories of language use. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Atlas, Jay. 2005. Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and their Interface. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camp, Elisabeth. 2017. The hot potato of interpretative responsibility. [URL]
Capone, Alessandro. 2005. Pragmemes. Journal of Pragmatics 371:1355–1371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Are explicatures cancellable? Toward a theory of the speaker’s intentionality. Intercultural Pragmatics 6 (1):55–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Explicatures are not cancellable. In Alessandro Capone, Francesco Lo Piparo, and Marco Carapezza, eds. Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics. Cham: Springer, 131–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016a. The pragmatics of indirect reports. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. Introduction to allan, Capone and Kecskes, eds. 2016. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capone, Alessandro, and Francesca Poggi, eds. 2016. Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical perspectives. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
CNN. 2017. Report: Mueller wants to talk to current and former Trump administration officials. [URL]
Danner, Chas. 2017 (June 11). Donald Trump Jr. may have accidentally confirmed part of Comey’s testimony. NYMag.com. Retrieved July 29, 2017 [URL]
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 751: 281–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Editorial Board. June 8, 2017. James Comey and the fear of being alone with Donald Trump. The New York Times. Retrieved July 29 from [URL]
. June 8, 2017. Mr. Comey and all the President’s lies. The New York Times. Retrieved July 29 from [URL]
Geis, Michael L. 1995. Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Ervin. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford. 2015. Assertion: On the philosophical significance of assertoric speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helmreich, Jeffrey. 2017. Personal communication.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia. 2016. Meaning in linguistic interaction: Semantics, metasemantics, philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kissine, Michail. 2013. From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2001. Pragmatics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. (Second edition)Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peacocke, Christopher. 2014. The mirror of the world: Subjects, consciousness, and self-consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poggi, Francesca, and Alessandro Capone, eds. 2016. Pragmatics and law: Practical and theoretical perspectives. Cham: Springer.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
Strawson, Peter. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review 73/4: 439–460. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 2017. Message and metamessage. [URL]
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Tseng, Ming-Yu
2023. Rén qíng wèi (‘flavour of human feelings’) in the pragmeme of delivering Covid-19 directives. Journal of Pragmatics 218 ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Boogaart, Ronny, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen
2021. “Those Are Your Words, not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Boogaart, Ronny, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen
2021. “Those are Your Words, Not Mine!” Defence Strategies for Denying Speaker Commitment. Argumentation 35:2 ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo
Catalano, Theresa & Linda R. Waugh
2020. CDA/CDS and Its Interdisciplinary Connections. In Critical Discourse Analysis, Critical Discourse Studies and Beyond [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 26], ► pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Butler, Brian E.
2019. Capone, Bucca, Warner and Llewellyn on Pragmemes and “I hope You Will Let Flynn Go”. In Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 20], ► pp. 587 ff. DOI logo
Tseng, Ming-Yu & Grace Zhang
2018. Pragmeme, adaptability, and elasticity in online medical consultations. Journal of Pragmatics 137 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 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