The Important of Semantics Knowledge in Teaching English

vernacular bout conjecture and the analysis of conversations. Sequencing and variant in pragmatic sanction scheme Jacques Moeschler De set forthment of Linguistics University of Geneva 1. Introduction Conversation has recently perform a focus of interest for patois snatch supposition and several(prenominal) proposals have been formulated concerning the possible extension of run-in practise surmise to the analysis of conversation. This debate (cf. Searle et al. 1992) has to be interpreted as a excited guide rather than as a natural extension of the celestial orbit of speech act possibility.Nevertheless, this reaction, either sceptical (cf. Searle 1992) or optimistic (cf. Dascal 1992, Vanderveken 1992 and 1994), has brought provoke issues which contrast with the various attempts by linguists at extending speech act theory to the domain of colloquy1 . The root purpose of this paper is to explicit the divergence among philosophers and linguists about the possible ext ension of speech act theory to confabulation analysis. This paper has a nonher purpose it in like manner deals with the possible domain of pragmatic theory with respect to chat analysis.I shall argue that the main purpose of deal analysis is the definition of necessary and satisfactory 2 MOESCHLER conditions for sequencing and interpretating utterances in discourse. I claim that these twain aspects of discourse (sequencing and interpretation) atomic number 18 intrinsically related and can non be accounted for independently from each other. I claim furtherto a greater extent that speech act theory can non give any insight into the sequencing and interpretation problems, because speech act theory is neither a theory of interpretation (it is a theory of meaning) nor a ball-shaped theory of action.Finally I show how a cornerstone pragmatic theory (in the Gricean sense) accounts for the sequencing and interpretation problems. 2 2. Speech act theory and conversation There is a c ommon sense argument dual-lane by philosophers and linguists in favour of the possible extension of speech act theory to discourse analysis. This argument is the following Speech acts be not isolated moves in dialogue they appear in more global units of communication, define as conversations or discourses.Vanderveken (1994, 53) gives an explicit version of this thesis when assert that speakers perform their illocutionary acts within entire conversations where they are most often in verbal interaction with other speakers who reply to them and perform in hand their sustain speech acts with the same collective intention to pursue with conquest a certain attribute of discourse. Thus, above all, the use of language is a social form of linguistic behavior.It consists, in general, of ordered sequences of utterances do by several speakers who tend by their verbal interactions to achieve common tangential goals such as discussing a question, deciding together how to react to a c ertain situation, negociating, consulting or more simply to commutation greetings and talk for its own sake. For terminological convenience, I will call such ordered sequences of speech acts conversations. SPEECH ACTS AND CONVERSATION 3 The basis of this argument is that conversation is made of sequences of speech acts.This certainly is a plausible theoretical claim3 , but gives plagiarise to a certain number of objections, raised mainly by Searle (1992) in his skeptical argument. These objections concern essentially the possible relations between questions and answers in conversation, and can be stated as follows. First of all, questions are defined in speech acts theory as invites for information, and as such overturn representative acts as replies. But this cannot be correct, since a reply may have some other illocutionary point (as a promise) if the question is a request for a promise.Secondly, certain questions require a directional as a reply, and not a representative, when the question contains a modal auxiliary verb (cf. the supervene upon Shall I marry Sally ? Yes, do/ No, dont / *Yes, you shall / *No, you shall not). The third counter-example is given by indirect reponses, which do not match syntactic conditions, although the answer is pragmatically appropriate. To these three arguments, we could add an even more embarrassing one answer is not a specific illocutionary force, which could be analysed by the seven components of illocutionary force (cf.Searle & Vanderveken 1985). Answer is a structural winding qualification, but certainly not the semantic definition of a speech act type. These objections make explicit an important difference between the social organisation of illocutionary acts and the structure of conversation. In speech act theory, and more precisely in illocutionary logic, illocutionary force is de collected into seven components, which are all necessary conditions for the successful and non speculative accomplishment of illocutionary acts.These components (cf. Searle & Vanderveken 1985, 12-20) are the illocutionary point, the degree of strength of the illocutionary point, the mode of achievement of the illocutionary point, the propositional nitty-gritty conditions of the illocutionary act, the preparatory conditions of the illocutionary act, the sincerity conditions of the illocutionary act, and finally the degree of strength of the sincerity conditions. That predictions 4 MOESCHLER bout the sequencing in conversation are difficult to come by follows from the fact that the internal structure of illocutionary acts (and more specifically the set of conditions for success) cannot incur the set of possible replies for any type of illocutionary act. By contrast, discourse analysis, slice specifying sequential relations in discourse between speech acts, does not constrain sequencing in conversation depending on the set of possible components of illocutionary force. The constraints are not structur al, in the sense of speech act theory, they are on the contrary useful.This means that the basic structures of conversation (exchanges) are made of dismantle order conversational units (moves) which carry running(a) properties. If speech act theory has been used so extensively within this paradigm of discourse analysis4 , it is because the useable properties associated with speech acts as units of meaning have been exported to speech acts as units of communication and discourse. This has several issues for the description of speech acts within discourse analysis. The first consequence is that the structure of conversation is not only based on a hierarchy of constituency, but is also functional.To take a classical discourse model (cf. Sinclair & Coulthard 1975), discourse categories (exchange, move, and act) are defined functionally. For lawsuit, an act of ELICITATION is part of a move of ELICITATION, which governs an exchange of ELICITATION. Thus all discourse constituents ab sorb a communicative function, that is, an interactive meaning. But we are here farthest from the conventional and semantic-meaning defining speech acts in speech act theory5 . As we have just noticed, discourse analysis supposes principles of constituency which allow interpretive or functional inheritance.If we tire, as above, that an ELICITATION is a two-place predicate relating utterance-units and discourse-units, we mustiness assume too that the functional properties of the smallest discourse units (acts) are inherited by the big constituents (moves and exchanges). This principle is structurally identical to the projection principle in reproductive grammar a phrase is a maximal projection of a lexical head (for SPEECH ACTS AND CONVERSATION 5 instance NP is a maximal projection of a N) in discourse, then, an exchange is thus functionally a maximal projection of an act.The principle of functional projection is not a necessary consequence of discourse analysis. Another classi cal discourse model, the Geneva hierachicalfunctional model (cf. Roulet et al. 1985, Moeschler 1985, Moeschler 1989a) makes a different claim functional determine do not stand in a one-to-one birth with discourse structures. In this model, there is a basic difference between rules of discourse formation and principles of functional interpretation. The structural dimension is based on the following rules of formation R1 Units of type Exchange are made of units of type hunt.R1 Exchanges are composed of at least two Moves. R2 Units of type Move are made of units types Act, Move or Exchange. R2 Moves composed by a superstar Act are well-formed. R2Moves composed by an Act and another discourse-unit type (Move or Exchange) are well-formed. R2 Moves composed by a single Exchange are ill-formed. Thus, the following discourse structures are well-formed (1) a. b. c. where E = exchange, M = move, A = act The structures in (1a-c) are the hierarchical representations alike(p) to the fol lowing short exchanges in (2)-(4) (2) A B A B A Are you assemble ?We can digress. Are you ready ? why ? We must egress now. (3) 6 B (4) A B A B A MOESCHLER Okay, but when I am in a hurry, I always forget something. Are you ready ? Because we must leave now. Yes I am Good. Lets go Lets go Okay We can represent the bracketting structures given in (1) by the following tree-schemata (5) (a) E M2 A We can leave. M1 A Are you ready ? (b) E E M2 M M1 M1 M2 M M1 A A A A A A A A A A A A A Are you ready ? Why ? We must leave now. Okay, but when I am in a hurry, I always forget something. (c) M1 E M2 M3 E M2 M3Are you ready ? Because we must leave now. Yes I am Good Lets go Lets go Okay These structures mean that in (5a) the exchange is made of two moves two composed of a single act, in (5b) the exchange is composed of two moves, the second of which is made of an exchange with two moves, and a move composed by an act and a move, and in (5c) the three-move exchange contains in the first mo ve an exchange made of three moves. SPEECH ACTS AND CONVERSATION 7 What are the functional counterparts of the structural aspects of conversational discourse ?There are two dimensions of functional properties associated with the structural device the first dimension is a restricted inheritance principle, and the second, a general procedure for assigning interpretation to discourse constituents. The first principle is a principle of functional art object Principle of functional composition (i) Constituents of exchanges bear illocutionary functions. (ii) Constituents of moves bear interactive functions. Definitions (i) Illocutionary functions are of three types initiative, reactive, and reactive-initiative. (ii) Interactive functions are of two types directive, and auxiliary.The first move of an exchange (M1) is always initiative the final move of an exchange is always reactive. For instance M2 in the exchange is the reactive move, and M1 is the initiative move. An inserted move (for example M2 in the structure ) is a reactive-initiative move. A directive (D) constituent is of the type move or act, and contains the act from which the move receives its illocutionary function a subordinate (constituent (of value act, move or exchange) is cancellable, and generally completes, argues for, or justifies the main or directive constituent of the move. We can now ive the complete hierachical-functional structures given in (1) and (5) as (6) and (6) (6) a. b. c. 8 MOESCHLER where E = exchange, sE = subordinate exchange, M = move, sM = subordinate move, dM = directive move, sA = subordinate act, dA = directive act (6) (a) E M2 dA We can leave. M1 dA Are you ready ? (b) E M2 dM sE M1 M1 M 2 dM dA dA dA sA sA dA dA sA dA dA dA dA dA Are you ready ? Why ? We must leave now. Okay, but when I am in a hurry, I always forget something. (c) M1 E M2 M3 sE M1 M2 M3 Are you ready ? Because we must leave now. Yes I am Good Lets go Lets go OkayThe second functional counterpart of the stuctural device is a procedure of interpretation assignment. It is not sufficient to have functional values assigned to discourse constituents required is also to have a procedure governing the assignment of a functional interpretation to each constituent. In other words, the types of structures given in (1), (5) or (6) are syntactic representations of discourse we need in addition a semantics, which can for instance assign to the hierarchical-functional structures given in (6) the following functional interpretations SPEECH ACTS AND CONVERSATION 9 (7) a. b.