Beyond Tradition: proposing a new framework for speech act classifications

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Arak, Arak, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, English Language and Literature Department, University of Arak, Arak, Iran

Abstract

Speech act theory is a significant issue in comprehending the intricate dynamics of human communication, acting as a guiding light in understanding how language is used to perform actions beyond the literal meanings of words. While traditional frameworks have presented valuable perceptions in classifying speech acts, the evolving nature of communication requires reconsidering and expanding these conventional approaches. The researchers of the current study proposed an innovative framework for speech act classifications, one that exceeds traditional boundaries and embraces the nuanced complexities of modern discourse. Based on seminal works by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), and also by considering important research by Grice (1975), Levinson (1983), and emerging perspectives represented by Verschueren (1999) and Sbisa (2002), the researchers of this study critically assess current classifications, identifying essential challenges and opportunities in speech act analysis. The proposed framework introduces other categories such as Metaplocutionary Acts, Interlocutionary Acts, and Negotiation Acts, offering a more comprehensive and context-sensitive approach to understanding speech acts. Through interdisciplinary collaboration and empirical validation, the researchers of this study aim to refine and apply this framework across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts, thereby paving the way for a more nuanced and dynamic comprehension of human communication.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Arundale, Robert B. (1999). An alternative model and ideology of communication for an alternative to politeness theory. Pragmatics, 9(1), 119–153. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.1.07aru
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.
Bousfield, D. (2007). Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2185–221
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2008). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. John Wiley & Sons,
Chen, J, Li, P., & Zhao, H. (2022). Integrating computational methods with linguistic theory for speech act identification in online discourse. Computational Linguistics Review, 35(4), 89–110
Culpeper J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence (Vol. 28). Cambridge University Press.
Garcia, M., & Martinez, S. (2022). Cultural adaptation of speech act classifications: Integrating cross-cultural perspectives in communication research. International Journal of Intercultural Communication, 39(1), 112–127.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Brill
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press
Horn, L. R. (2004). Implicature. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 3–28).
Jones, M., & Peterson, K. (2023). The role of artificial intelligence in pragmatic speech act analysis. Journal of Computational Pragmatics, 47(2), 215–232.
Kumar, R R., & Singh, A. (2021). Politeness strategies in digital communication: Evolution in AI‑mediated interactions. Digital Communication Review, 29(3), 178–195.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 458–508.
Lee, C., Kim, D., & Park, E. (2020). Exploring machine learning algorithms in speech act classification: Towards automated analysis of communicative behavior. Computational Linguistics Review, 28(2), 187–201.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press
Martinez, C., & Rossi, F. (2023). A hybrid model for automated speech act recognition: Integrating deep learning with pragmatic analysis. Multilingual AI Research, 40(1), 134–152.
Searle, J.  R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Sbisa, M. (1999). Context and speech acts: An essay in the metaphysics of language. CSLI Publications.
Sbisa, M. (2002). Speech acts in context. Language & Communication, 22(4), 421–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00019-2.
Smith, A., & Johnson, B. (2021). Bridging tradition with contemporary dynamics: A new framework for speech act classifications. Journal of Communication Studies, 45(3), 321–335.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (Vol. 142). Harvard University Press.
Tanaka, H., & Yamada, S. (2023). Multilingual speech act recognition using deep learning: The influence of cultural context on classification models. AI and Language Studies, 38(2), 99–117.
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts: Principles of language use. Cambridge University Press
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Verschueren, J., & Sbisà, M. (2012). Revisiting contextual dynamics in speech act interpretation. Journal of Pragmatic Theory, 44(5), 612–630.
Wang, X., & Liu, Y. (2021). The role of context in refining speech act classification: A challenge to traditional taxonomies. Journal of Digital Pragmatics, 26(3), 145–162.
Zhang, L., & Wu, T. (2023). Gricean principles in multilingual and intercultural settings: Exploring communicative maxim flouting. International Journal of Pragmatics Research, 44(4), 210–227.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics