Transcript Teaching Consecutive Interpreting

Research Methods in Translation
and Interpreting Studies
Speech Acts
5 December 2007
Speech Acts

Pragmatics

“the study of the purposes for which
sentences are used, of the real world
conditions under which a sentence may
be appropriately used as an utterance”
(Stalnaker 1972:380)
Speech Acts

Basic Unit of Language


Not word or sentence
The act which a person performs by
using words and sentences
Speech Acts

“Besides the question that has been very much
studied in the past as to what a certain utterance
means, there is a further question distinct from
this as to what was the force, as we call it, of an
utterance. We may be quite clear what ‘Shut the
door’ means, but not yet at all clear on the
further point as to whether as uttered at a certain
time it was an order, an entreaty or whatnot.
What we need besides the old doctrine about
meanings is a new doctrine about all the possible
forces of utterances” (Austin 1970:251).
Speech Acts

Locutionary act


Illocutionary act


The act of saying something, using the sound,
grammatical and semantic systems of the
language (close the door)
The act performed in saying something. The
act identified by an explicit performative (he
urged me to close the door)
Perlocutionary act

The act performed by or as a result of saying
something (non-linguistic) (he persuaded me
to close the door)
Speech Acts
Example: I mention to a friend that I’m thinking of resigning. His
response might be analysed as follows:
Act (A) or Locution
 He said to me, “This is not a good idea, because it’s difficult
to get a good job elsewhere”.
Act (B) or Illocution
 He advised me against leaving my current job.
Act (C.a) or Perlocution
 He persuaded me not to resign.
Act (C.b)
 He brought me to my senses.
 He annoyed me by his comments.
Speech Acts

Searle


Direct Speech Acts
Indirect Speech Acts

An illocutionary act is performed indirectly

Can you pass the salt (question/request)
Speech Acts

Searle’s Felicity Conditions (illocutionary)




Propositional content condition (Propositional
content or conventional meaning)
Sincerity condition (speaker’s mental state)
Essential condition (what the utterance is
meant to count as)
Preparatory conditions (situational
preconditions)
Speech Acts

Difficulties Speech Acts pose in
translation and interpreting


When force departs from conventional
sense (locutionary force)
When the ultimate effect defies
expectations based on the locutionary
and illocutionary force (perlocutionary
force)
Speech Acts

Strategies


Translator attempts to re-perform
locutionary and illocutionary acts
(Blum-Kulka 1981)
Bourne 2002

Report verbs



Strengtheners/weakeners
Addition (compensation)
Pre-empting TT readers perception of ST
characters (Britishness)
Speech Acts

Interpreting

Tunisian minister example

“This matter concerns the Saudis” (Hatim
& Mason 1997)
Speech Acts

Criticism of Speech Act Theory




Neglects naturalness of language use
(differentiation between different types
of illucutionary force)
A single utterance will often perform
several acts simultaneously
Single act does not have to be limited
to the sentence
Use of ‘de-contextualised’ sentences
Speech Acts

Beyond the single speech act

Illocutionary structure (Ferrara 1980)


Interpretation of speech acts depends on
their position and status within a
sequence
Text act

Contribution of local sequences of speech
acts to a global sequence encompassing
the entire text (Horner 1975)
Speech Acts

Findings

Illocutionary value of Argumentative
texts
Problem section ‘assertive’
 Solution section ‘directive’


Indeterminancy of individual speech
acts

Can be resolved by reference to global
organisation of text
Speech Acts

Findings (cont.)

Irony (Pelsmaekers & Van Besien 2002)
Shifts in ironic cues in subtitling
 Increase in overt criticism, explicitness
and loss of ambiguity
