Article published In: Categorization in multilingual storytelling
Edited by Matthew T. Prior and Steven Talmy
[Pragmatics and Society 10:3] 2019
► pp. 452–469
General section
The importance of borrowing across disciplines
The anthropological notion of speech events
Published online: 22 October 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18060.shu
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18060.shu
Abstract
Over the years, linguists have borrowed from other allied fields, including speech events from cultural
anthropology, schema theory from psychology, speech acts from philosophy, and conversational strategies from rhetoric. In
analyzing large and continuous chunks of conversational data, the first and most important of these borrowings is the speech
event, for it sets the stage in which the other language elements are embedded and provides a useful sequence for analyzing
everything else, including the conventional linguistic tools of the grammar and lexicon.
The present paper represents the optimal sequence of analysis as an Inverted Pyramid, starting with the speech
event and then moving down the order to schemas, agendas, speech acts, conversational strategies, and finally to the grammar and
lexicon that are embedded within each other. Two prominent criminal law investigations are used to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the Inverted Pyramid approach for understanding this evidence.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The evolving development of linguistics
- 3.Speech events
- 4.Analytical procedures: The DeLorean case and the ‘Inverted Pyramid’
- 5.The case of Texas v. Clayton
- 5.1The business transaction speech event
- 5.2The campaign contribution speech event
- 5.3The bribery speech event
- 5.4The ambiguous “do”
- 5.5The last ditch approach
- 6.Summary
- Note
References
References (35)
Bartlett, Frederic. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, Richard & Charles Briggs. 1990. “Poetics and Performance as Critical Perspectives on Language and Social Life”. Annual Review of Anthropology 191: 59–88.
Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer (eds.). 1974. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, Wallace. 1972. “Discourse structure and human knowledge”. In Roy Freedle & John B. Carroll (eds.), Language Comprehension and the Acquisition of Knowledge, 67–81. Washington, D.C.: V.H. Winston.
Comaroff, John. 1975. “Talking Politics: Oratory and Authority in a Tswana Chiefdom”. In M. Bloch (ed.), Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, 141–183. London: Academic Press.
Davison, Alice. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts and What to Do with Them”. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, 143–185. New York: Academic Press.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1985. “Sociocultural Dimensions of Discourse”. In Teun van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 193–230. New York: Academic Press.
Evans, Vyvyan and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Gumperz, John. 1972. “Introduction”. In John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, 1–25. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
. 1982. “Introduction: language and the communication of social identity”. In John Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 1–21. New York: Cambridge University Press.
. 1997. “On the Interactional Bases of Speech Community Membership”. In Gregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language, Social Interaction and Discourse Structures, Papers in honor of William Labov, 183–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hansell, Mark and Cheryl Ajirotutu. 1982. “Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings”. In John Gumperz (ed.), Language and Social Identity, 85–94. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1964. “Toward Ethnographies of Communication”. American Anthropologist 66–6 (part 2) (1–34).
. 1972. “Models of interaction of language and the social life”. In John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. “Conceptual semantics and Cognitive Linguistics”. Cognitive Linguistics 7(1): 93–129.
Kates, Carol. 1980. Pragmatics and Semantics: An Empiricist Theory. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Keenan-Ochs, Elinor & Bambi Schieffelin. 1976. “Topic as discourse notion: a study of topic in the conversations of children and adults.” In Charles Li (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press.
Kuipers, Joel. 1990. Power in Performance: The Creation of Textual Authority in Weyewa Ritual Speech. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rumelhart, David. 1980. “Schemata: the building blocks of cognition.” In R. J. Spiro (ed.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. 1975. “Indirect Speech Acts.” In Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.
Shuy, Roger W. 1990. “Tape-recorded conversations”. In Paul Andrews and Marilyn Peterson (eds.), Criminal Intelligence Analysis, 117–148. Loomis, Calif.: Palmer Enterprises.
1997. “Discourse clues to coded language in an impeachment hearing”. In Gregory Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh (eds.), Towards a Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov, 121–138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
