What is it to understand a directive speech act?

Dorschel, Andreas

doi:10.1080/00048408912350161

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(Dorschel, 1989). Presumably, Richter's utterances had something to do with convincing King of some legitimate reasons for fulfilling the directives; the two lines 14-15 logically argue the context, after which King uttered an agreement marker "uh-huh" 17.…”

Section: Qualitative Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of a directive is, as Searle (1976) pointed out, usually an attempt to get the hearer to act in some way, or, alternatively, as Dorschel (1989) described, to get the hearer to ascribe to some value, attitude, or belief that may or may not trigger an action. In the data analyzed in this thesis, the officers gave directives that implied they wanted the motorists to believe in or value the formers' positions of institutional authority over the motorists.…”

Section: Directives Perlocution and Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dorschel (1989) also argued that a speaker's directive usually claims to have some authority over the hearer that can stand in as reasons. For example, the officers in these data might have used their institutional authority as the reasons for the motorists to fulfill the directives given.…”

Section: Dorschel Built Uponmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In his discussion, Fraser defined three conditions that constitute a threat: 1) intention to threaten an action 2) the action must be unfavorable to the hearer, and 3) the intention must be to intimidate. Because intention is a difficult construct to navigate, Dorschel (1989) has argued that a threat must also be mutually understood and that it is usually made for the speaker's benefit (to change the behavior or coerce some action from the hearer (Searle, 1976)). In light of Dorschel's observations, I would argue that in addition to the speaker holding such a belief, the hearer must also believe that the speaker has the power or ability to carry out the action of the threat.…”

Section: Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The guiding factor was what came after the problematic utterance-that is, its uptake. I have assumed that Dorschel's (1989) classes of response provide an objective framework to judge how the utterance was taken.…”

Section: Analysis Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Escalating Language at Traffic Stops: Two Case Studies

Haley¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the public has seen a rise in recorded footage of violent encounters between police and Black American citizens, partially due to technology such as cell phones, dash-cameras, and body-cameras. This linguistic study examines how these encounters get escalated to the point of violence by asking 1) what kind of directives were used, 2) how were they responded to, 3) how the directives contributed to escalation, and

show abstract

Section: Qualitative Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Directives Perlocution and Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dorschel Built Uponmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Threatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Escalating Language at Traffic Stops: Two Case Studies

Haley¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do we need an account of prayer to address the problem for praying without ceasing?

Hatcher

2022

Rel. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1 Th. 5:17 tells us to pray without ceasing. Many have worried that praying without ceasing seems impossible. Most address the problem by giving an account of the true nature of prayer. Unexplored are strategies for dealing with the problem that are neutral on the nature of prayer, strategies consistent, for example, with the view that only petition is prayer. In this article, after clarifying the nature of the problem for praying without ceasing, I identify and explore the prospects of five different strategies that are neutral in this sense. I also raise problems for each strategy.

show abstract

Elephant 2000

McCarthy

2007

Companion to the 22nd ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems and Applications Companion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elephant 2000 is a proposed programming language good for writing and verifying programs that interact with people (e.g., transaction processing) or interact with programs belonging to other organizations (e.g., electronic data interchange). Communication inputs and outputs are in an I/O language whose sentences are meaningful speech acts identified in the language as questions, answers, offers, acceptances, declinations, requests, permissions, and promises. The correctness of programs is partly defined in terms of proper performance of the speech acts. Answers should be truthful and responsive, and promises should be kept. Sentences of logic expressing these forms of correctness can be generated automatically from the form of the program.

show abstract

What is it to understand a directive speech act?

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Escalating Language at Traffic Stops: Two Case Studies

Escalating Language at Traffic Stops: Two Case Studies

Do we need an account of prayer to address the problem for praying without ceasing?

Elephant 2000

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About