Skip to main content

Narratives in Conversation as Pragmemes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 9))

Abstract

In illocutionary terms, narrative is a representative speech act: it describes people and events in the past. In a conversational slot, this representative act can acquire the force of a confession, accusation, warning, excuse etc., and thus realize an illocutionary force (or pragmeme) different from the representative force.

Extrapolating from Searle (Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969; Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and semantics: speech acts, vol 3. Academic Press, New York, 1975), one can say that narratives are direct representatives, and perhaps indirect expressives or directives, working from the literal to the indirect, contextual force. But from the perspective of the pragmeme theory, it is the contextual slot which determines the pragmeme realized by a narrative. My contribution considers what non-representative pragmemes narrative can realize, which indirect illocutionary acts in particular slots, how a story might function as a directive, an expressive, a commissive or a declaration. It will show how a story about an unfortunate incident can function as a directive (warning, advising), perhaps with an explicit ‘moral’ tacked on as in fables, and how a story can function as an indirect expressive, as when one tells a story in order to make excuses, and thereby produces an indirect apology.

These issues will be discussed on the basis of examples from natural conversation with an eye to drawing out potential consequences for pragmeme theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The earliest use of the term pragmeme I have found is in Ehlich and Rehbein (1972: 224), who say they borrow it from an apparently unpublished 1971 lecture by Asa Kasher, but the basic notion is the same as Pike’s behavioreme.

  2. 2.

    Searle (1969) originally called this illocutionary force ‘representative’, then changed it to ‘assertive’ in 1975, but I prefer the original term in being more generally used and in not apparently presupposing commitment to truth, especially since stories often represent fictional worlds—see Searle (1979), viii fn, and discussion of fictional discourse, ch. 3: 58–75.

  3. 3.

    As we see here and in the citations just below, it is typical of Searle, along with Grice and Griceans to think in terms of verbs (and surface syntax) as responsible for (direct) force and then to develop (contextual) meaning from there, rather than to look at the slot and what it calls for, as dictated by pragmeme theory.

References

  • Bernaerts, L. (2010). Interactions in cuckoos nest: Elements of a narrative speech-act analysis. Narrative, 18, 276–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1355–1371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlich, K., & Rehbein, J. (1972). Zur Konstitution pragmatischer Einheiten in einer Institution: Das Speiserestaurant. In D. Wunderlich (Ed.), Linguistische Pragmatik (pp. 318–340). Frankfurt: Athenäum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk, J. (1980). The conversational duet. In Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting (pp. 507–514).

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • González, M. (2004). Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (2nd ed). London: Routledge, 2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns, M. (1999). Rhetorical narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 2889–2897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norrick, N. R. (2004). Humor, tellability and conarration in conversation. Text, 24, 79–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, K. L. (1954/1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt, M. L. (1977). Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, 2 vols. In G. Jefferson (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A., et al. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In J. C. Alexander (Ed.), The micro-macro link (pp. 207–234). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R. (1979). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In J. R. Searle (Ed.), Expression and meaning (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Toolan, M. (1998). The give and take of talk, and Caryl Churchill’s cloud nine. In J. Culpeper (Ed.), Exploring the language of drama: From text to context (pp. 142–160). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiplakou, S., & Floros, G. (2013). Never mind the text types, here’s textual force: Towards a pragmatic reconceptualization of text type. Journal of Pragmatics, 45, 119–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R. (1981). The pragmalinguistic analysis of narrative texts: Narrative co-operation in Charles Dickens’s hard times. Tübingen: Narr.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neal R. Norrick .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Norrick, N.R. (2016). Narratives in Conversation as Pragmemes. In: Allan, K., Capone, A., Kecskes, I. (eds) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 9. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43491-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43490-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43491-9

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics