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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 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use of the term pragmeme I have found is in Ehlich and Rehbein (1972: 224), who say they borrow it from an apparently unpublished 1971 lecture by Asa Kasher, but the basic notion is the same as Pike’s behavioreme.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.
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.
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 cuckoo’s nest: Elements of a narrative speech-act analysis. Narrative, 18, 276–299.
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1355–1371.
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.
Falk, J. (1980). The conversational duet. In Berkeley Linguistics Society: Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting (pp. 507–514).
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City: Anchor Books.
González, M. (2004). Pragmatic markers in oral narrative: The case of English and Catalan. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations of sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (2nd ed). London: Routledge, 2001
Kearns, M. (1999). Rhetorical narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Keskes, I. (2010). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(1), 2889–2897.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Norrick, N. R. (2004). Humor, tellability and conarration in conversation. Text, 24, 79–111.
Pike, K. L. (1954/1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.
Pratt, M. L. (1977). Toward a speech act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, 2 vols. In G. Jefferson (Ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3). New York: Academic.
Searle, J. R. (1979). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In J. R. Searle (Ed.), Expression and meaning (pp. 1–29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
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.
Watts, R. (1981). The pragmalinguistic analysis of narrative texts: Narrative co-operation in Charles Dickens’s hard times. Tübingen: Narr.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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)