/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) speech acts (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: speech acts
Is in goldstandard
1
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt124 - : Searle provides a classification of speech acts whose subclassification can surely be furthered on:
2
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt124 - : 2.1. Representatives are speech acts that represent some state of affairs in varying degrees of truth with respect to the proposition: state, believe, conclude, deny, report .
3
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt124 - : 2.2. Commissives are speech acts that commit in varying degrees the speaker to some future course of action: promise, pledge, vow, swear, threat .
4
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt124 - : 2.3. Directives are speech acts whose intention is to get the addressee to carry out some action: command, insist, dare, request, challenge, ask, request .
5
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt124 - : 2.5. expressives are speech acts that indicate the speakers psychological state or mental attitude towards/about a state of affairs: welcome, deplore, greet, thank, congratulate, apologize .
6
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt125 - : [2] número15 [3]Intonational devices used in the distinction of speech acts [4]Referencias para un análisis del discurso del gobierno militar chileno sobre el movimiento estudiantil universitario: 1973-1980 [5] índice de autores [6]índice de materia [7]búsqueda de artículos [8]Home Page [9]lista alfabética de revistas
7
paper CL_LiteraturayLingüísticatxt471 - : [RETRACTED ARTICLE] Cognitive problem-solving abilities and speech acts in children: an analysis in vulnerable family contexts
8
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : A large number of studies in ILP have been conducted within the framework of speech acts (^[38]Abed, 2011). According to ^[39]Searle (1969) , “the reason for concentrating on the study of speech acts is simply this: all linguistic communication involves linguistic acts… and speech acts… are the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication” (p . 16). Searle (1969) further argues that speaking, as a rule-governed behavior, has formal features that can be studied independently. However, mere study of those formal features without the study of speech acts is “necessarily incomplete” (p. 17).
9
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : A review of the speech act theory would be incomplete without touching on the classification systems of speech acts (^[40]Schauer, 2009). One of the most influential classifications of speech acts and the one most constative pragmaticians adhere to (^[41]Robinson, 2006) is ^[42]Searle’s classificatory system. Searle (1975) has identified five classes of speech acts: representatives (e .g., asserting, boasting, claiming, concluding, deducing, describing, insisting, hypothesizing, predicting, reporting, stating, etc.), directives (e.g., begging, commanding, ordering, pleading, requesting, suggesting, etc.), commissives (e.g., offering, pledging, promising, threatening, volunteering, vowing, etc.), expressives (e.g., apologizing, condoling, congratulating, deploring, regretting, thanking, welcoming, etc.), and declarations (e.g., baptizing, christening, firing, sentencing, etc.). This study draws on Searle’s classificatory scheme to investigate Iranian EFL Learners’ realization of the
10
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt244 - : According to ^[56]Ellis (2008) , the study of speech acts in learner language should involve three sets of data: (1 ) samples of the speech act in question produced by L2 learners in the target language, (2) samples of the same speech act as produced by NSs of the target language, and (3) samples of that speech act performed by the learners in their L1. As such, this study included two groups of participants: Iranian EFL learners responding in both English and Persian, and NSs of American English responding in English.
11
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt105 - : These six speech acts are generally maintained in the interaction between the teacher and students every time the pattern of asking about content emerges during a linguistic exercise in class. The analysis reveals how the teacher and the students use these six speech acts as components of the functional structure of the interaction in this pattern. The potential influence that these speech acts have on the teacher's and the students' interactional behavior in class seems to depend a great deal on three aspects:
12
paper CO_ColombianAppliedLinguisticsJournaltxt105 - : To sum up, the interactional pattern of "asking about content" emerges when the students need the teacher's explanation or clarification about the content of a linguistic exercise. The six speech acts in the interactional pattern are generally present in the interaction every time a student asks about content during a linguistic exercise in this class. The potential influence that the six speech acts have on the teacher's and the students' interactional behavior seems to depend on four aspects: on the intention of each speech act within the interactional pattern, on what content the student needs to ask the teacher about, on the level of difficulty at which the student can construct the question, and on what content the teacher uses to answer it .
13
paper CO_CuadernosdeLingüísticaHispánicatxt60 - : Searle, J. (1990). Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of language, (1969 ) Actos de habla, Ed. Cátedra, -quinta edición- [ [55]Links ]
14
paper CO_FormayFuncióntxt170 - : Finally, it must be mentioned that we encountered in our analysis what we call "extended speech acts": in some cases, two or more instances of realizations for a single speech act were identified in one particular interaction . This occurs because the speakers sometimes rephrase their speech acts with one or two more direct or less direct utterances than the first one. Thus, we consider the subsequent realizations of the act to be an extension of the speech act in the interaction rather than a new one. This can be seen in the following conversational exchange, where the second realization is a way to indirectly paraphrase the first:
15
paper CO_Íkalatxt127 - : 6. Beebe, L. M. and Cummings M. C. (1996). Natural speech act data versus written questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language, (pp . 65- 86). New York, NJ: Mouton de Gruyter. [ [53]Links ]
16
paper CO_Íkalatxt11 - : Polite behaviour is subject to the features of the interaction which are socioculturally marked by the speech community beyond what is regarded as political behaviour. Thus, Brown and Levinson's strategies of positive and negative politeness are interpreted as socio-culturally determined politic behaviour. Likewise, it will have to pay attention to whether examples of linguistic politeness such as terms of address, honorifics, ritualised expressions and speech events, and indirect speech acts are polite forms or whether they are used normally as socio-culturally constrained forms of politic behaviour (Watts, 1992:51 ). Therefore, politic behaviour is just a socially appropriated behaviour and terms of address are realisations of politic behaviour.
17
paper CO_Íkalatxt12 - : 31. Kim, I. (2000). Relationship of onset age of ESL acquisition and extent of informal input to appropriateness and nativeness in performing four speech acts in English: A study of native Korean adult speakers of ESL . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University. [ [77]Links ]
18
paper VE_Núcleotxt38 - : Dual Speech Acts: A Reflection on the Pragmatics of Spanish regarding Current Theories and Methods of Analysis
19
paper VE_Núcleotxt38 - : 1 Some, if not all speech acts in Cuban Spanish (such as requests, orders, and compliments ), which were universally classified by Brown and Levinson as FTAs to the Hearers negative face, then have, under my hypothesis, a lesser potential to be threatening or perceived as such in this language-specific cultural setting (Ruzicková, 1998: 305 ).
20
paper corpusSignostxt564 - : Bazzanella, C., Caffi, C. & Sbisà, M. (1991). Scalar dimension of illocutionary force. En I. Zagar (Ed.), Speech acts: Fiction or reality ? Proceedings of the International Conference, Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, November 15, 1990 (pp. 63-76). Ljubljana: Institute for Social Sciences. [ [123]Links ]
21
paper corpusSignostxt532 - : El análisis presentado en este documento se centrará en el estudio de movimientos argumentativos analíticamente relevantes, es decir, “those speech acts that (at least potentially) play a role in the process of resolving a difference of opinión” (nuestra traducción: “aquellos actos de habla que (al menos potencialmente) desempeñan un papel en el proceso de resolver una diferencia de opinión”) (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004: 73 ). En particular, para el presente estudio, solo las discusiones que cumplen los tres criterios siguientes fueron seleccionadas para el análisis: 1) una diferencia de opinión entre padres e hijos sobre un problema relacionado con las reglas y normas de los padres se hace evidente en el discurso: ‘¿Puede el niño usar la goma para borrar el dibujo?’; 2) al menos un punto de vista utlizado por uno de los dos padres es cuestionado verbalmente por uno o más niños, o viceversa: (NIÑO) ‘Sí, quiero intentar’ - (PADRE) ‘No, no puedes’; 3) al menos uno de los
Evaluando al candidato speech acts:
1) teacher: 7
2) searle: 7
3) linguistic: 7 (*)
5) interaction: 5 (*)
7) interactional: 5
10) pattern: 4 (*)
12) learners: 4 (*)
13) politic: 4
14) behaviour: 4
20) opinión: 3
speech acts
Lengua: eng
Frec: 290
Docs: 123
Nombre propio: 4 / 290 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 4
Puntaje: 4.726 = (4 + (1+5.6724253419715) / (1+8.18487534290828)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| speech acts |
: 5. Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press : ------; (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . : 11. Cohen, A. D. (1996). Speech acts. In S. L. Mckay and N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching (pp. 383-420). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. : 12. Haverkate, H. (1988). Politeness strategies in verbal interaction: an analysis of directness and indirectness in speech acts. Semiotica, 71(1-2), 59-71. : 15. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : 21. Myers, G. (1992). ''In this paper we report...'': Speech acts and scientific facts, Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313. : 21. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MS: Cambridge University Press. : 3. Bach, Kent y Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press. : 32. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. Morgan (coords.), Speech acts: Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). Nueva York: Academic Press. : 33 Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : 33. Searle, John R. 1975. Indirect speech acts. En Peter Cole y JamesMorgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, 59-82. New York: Academic Press. : 36. Maeshiba, N., Yoshinaga, N., Kasper, G., & Ross, S. (1996). Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures. Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 155–187). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. : 38. Wierzbicka,Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different language, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 145-178. : 5. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. L. Morgan (Comps.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). Nueva York: Academic Press. : 6. Delgado, V. ( 1994). Politeness in language: Directive speech acts in U.S. English, and Colombian and Castilian Spanish. Tesis doctoral no publicada, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Estados Unidos. : Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. (2001). Indirect speech acts. Synthese, 128, 183-228. : Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge (Mass): MIT Press. : Bara, B., Bosco, F. & Bucarelli, M. (1999). Simple and complex speech acts: What makes the difference within a developmental perspective. En M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXI Cognitive Science Society (pp. 55-60). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum. : Bazerman, C. (2003). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. En C. Bazerman y P. Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it (pp. 315-346). Londres y Nueva York: Routledge . : Bazzanella, C., Caffi, C. & Sbisá, M. (1991). Scalar dimension of illocutionary force. En I. Zagar (Ed.), Speech acts: Fiction or reality? (pp. 63-76). Ljubljana: IPrA Distribution Center for Yugoslavia. : Boxer, D. & Pickering, L. (1995). Problems in the presentation of speech acts in ELT materials: the case of complaint. ELT Journal, 49(1), 44-58. : Bruner, Jerome S. 1975. The ontogenesis of speech acts, Journal of Child Language , 2: 1-19. : Burkhardt, A. (Ed.) (1990). Speech acts, meaning and intentions: critical approaches to the philosophy of John R. Searle. Berlín: De Gruyter. : COLE, P. (1975). Syntax and Semantics 3 Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. : Clark, H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430-477. : Cohen, A. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language (pp. 21-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. : GRICE, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. En P. Cole y J. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts (Syntax and Semantics, vol. III) (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. : Geis, M. (1995). Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge: CUP. : Gibbs, R. (1986). What makes some indirect speech acts conventional? Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 181-196. : Grice, H. (1975). Logic and conversation. En J. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. : Hayashi, T., and R. Hayashi (1991) Back channel or main channel: A cognitive approach based on floor and speech acts. Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series 2, 119-138. : Honglin, Li. (2007). A comparative study of refusal speech acts in Chinese and American English. Canadian Social Science, 3(4), 64-67. : Howell, S. (1986). Speech acts as one discourse. Man, 21, 79-101. : Koike, A. 1989. Pragmatic Competence and adult Second language Acquisition: Speech Acts in Interlenguage, The Modern Language Journal, 73, 3: 279-289. : Liberman, Mark y Sag, I. (1975). Intonational Disambiguation of Indirect Speech Acts. CLS, 11, 487-497. : Murphy, B. &. Neu, J. (1996). My grade's too low: the speech act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass & J. Neu (Eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in Second Language, 191-216, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. : Myers, G. (1992). "In this text we report..." Speech acts and scientific facts. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 295-313. : Nishimura S. (2005). Languaje, violence and irrevocability: speech acts in tess of the dúrbervilles. En: Studies in the Novel volumen 37 N°2. pp. 208-222. : Noland Grand C. (2009). Janes Austen's Speech Acts and Languaged Based Societies. (Baltimore). En: SEL Studies in English Literature 1500-1900. pp. 863-878. : Pérez Hernández, L. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2002). Grounding, semantic motivation, and conceptual interaction in indirect directive speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 259-284. : Ramírez, A. (1988). Analyzing speech acts. En J. Green & J. O. Harker (eds.), Multiple perspective analysis of classroom discourse (pp. 135-163). Norwood (Nj): Ablex Publishing Corporation. : Rosaldo, M. (1982). The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy. Language in Society, 11(2), 203-37. : SEARLE, J., (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. : Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. En P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts (pp. 59-82). Nueva York: Academic Press. : Searle, J. (1979) A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. En J. Searle, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (pp.1-29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, J. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP. : Searle, J. (1979). Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. Inglaterra: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, John (1975), “Indirect Speech Acts”, en Peter Cole y Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Nueva York, Academic Press, pp. 59-82. : Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Searle, John. 1975. "Indirect Speech Acts". En Peter Cole y Jerry L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics. Vol. 3: Speech acts. Nueva York: Academic Press. : Stobbe, L. (2005). Doing machismo: Legitimating speech acts as a selection discourse. Gender work and Organization, 12(2), 105-123. : Taavitsainen, I. & A. Jucker (2008). Speech acts now and then. Towards a pragmatic history of English. En A. H. Jucker & I. Taavitsainen (Eds.), Speech Acts in the History of English (pp. 1-26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. : _________ (1984). Speech acts, speakers and hearers. References and referential strategies in spanish. Amsterdam: Benjamins. : van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. |