Speech Acts and Sub-Sentential Speech
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22329366 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James R Thompson (0000-0002-1906-0471, Mississippi State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2011 |
| Volume | 43 |
| Issue | 129 |
| Pages | 65-91 |
| Publication date | 2011-12-13 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Critica (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0011-1503 • E-ISSN: 1870-4905 |
| Publisher | Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (PUBLISHER • MX) |
| DOI | 10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2011.789 |
| OpenAlex | W4617565 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 8 |
In this paper, I compile some reasons for resisting Stainton’s (2006) analysis of sub-sentential speech. My resistance stems from considerations about the intentions and expectations of those who communicate using sub-sentential speech. I challenge Stainton’s reasons for thinking that some sub-sentential utterances have the status of full-fledged speech acts and argue that they turn out to be degenerate speech acts. After offering my own analysis of sub-sentential speech, I recommend that by revisiting the divide and conquer strategy Stainton dismisses for handling the alleged cases of genuine sub-sentential speech, we can resist radical forms of contextualism suggested by his analysis
Indirect speech · Linguistics · Computer Science · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Philosophy · Psychology · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
| Highly cited | No |
|---|