SEM141 - Speech Acts - An Overview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 июн 2024
- This E-Lecture is the first part of the VLC introduction to pragmatics. It discusses the central differences between meaning and use and examines the use of utterances with special emphasis on speech act theory.
The perlocutionary act denotes the intended effect that the speaker wants to achieve with the illocutionary act. In the case of the example used in this E-Lecture ("Don't do that!"), the warning (illocutionary act) may be intended to "prevent the young child from an electric shock". It is important to note that the intended effect is always special to the respective situation.
JH
I do love this guy! I'm in a small investigation at my university, and, well, my play in it contains all these basic concepts to Pragmatics. Furthermore, I'm glad that my mother talked me into studying English, otherwise I wouldn't understand these videos. So, from Lima, Peru, Thank you for making these explanations!
La policía del pensamiento le recomendaría citar amigo ( :
Un saludo desde México
Thank you so much, Teacher!!! You helped me to understand what I was reading for a week. I'm glad I found you!!!
A wonderful lecture by a wonderful lecturer , everything was clear, thank you so much and go on presenting such lectures especially on pragmatic theories
Thank you Sir for making the whole uninteresting thing easier and fun.😊
Incredible! Great video! Thank you so much for taking the time to make it!
You've got to read The User Illusion by Tor Norretranders, you'll love it.
Fantastic and Clear explanation! Good work!
Thank you, it is a well-illustrated lecture about the theory of speech act.
I'll answer your question in the Questions of the Month Video "February 2013".
JH
A small observation , minute 6 .41 what is it , not to perform ? It is the action of touching, etc. the socket , it is not the socket it self ,once the socket does not involve any act or consequence by it self
Great that this type of videos are on line
Marvellous! I finally understand the SA theory in a simple way thanks
The term "promise" suggests that the person who is invited to the party would have less interest in his/her joining the party than the person who invited him/her, because the act of joining the party would be at the expense of the invited person, which, with parties, is usually not the case.
Under certain conditions the utterance could be correct, for example, if the invited person is much more popular than the inviting person.
thank you so much sir your presentation has just enlightened my brain after a struggle with this theory. such a great help
Well-done. Everything so clearly exemplified.
Thank you so much lots of love from Turkey by your fellow colleague
Thank you for making the Speech Act Theory so easy to follow. I couldn't understand it very well before watching this video.
Thank you for your hard working but there is one thing you should take in consideration next time your doing a great video like this ,
Please don’t talk like a book or read from a book, we can read a book at home. The reason why we watch lectures on RUclips is to get clear insights about theories mentioned in books and watching your videos don’t make it easier but it makes it harder.
Love and respect ✊
The 'I promise I ll come to your party' with the finger up is hysterical 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Nice summary. You can hear Austin's voice online in the video "J.L. Austin speaks." He talks about how true/false is really a false dichotomy.
Thank you very much for an excellent lecture. I will be using your lectures as a source of reference during my degree an glad i stumbled acros
s such excellent tutorials. Thank you
Honestly, I do not know whether Chomsky dismisses Searle's approach to speeach acts. But certainly, as far as I know, pragmatics has not been a major goal of Chomsky's research.
JH
amazingly simplified ! thank you sir
Thank you for your lectures
That's pretty clear. Thanks for this video.
Your presentation is really enlightening. Thanks for the effort put into this. I'm grateful!
This YT channel is incredible!
I'm a foreign language student and I'm really planning to study a master of linguistics in some future, and this channel motivates me to do it! Your explanations are perfectly clear! I've watched your videos since 2 years ago when I studied a course of general linguistics, keep it going! Congrats!
I love how you simplify these terms in 14 minutes. Heheheh glad I watched the video.
Very good explanation. I would like to find more about speech theory act related to the notions of face (Goffman) and relational work (Locher and Watts.)
Thank you, from Laos.
Doing studying Linguistic. Its help a lot.
This was really helpful. Thank you very much
love u and ur way of explinations, from Iraq
great explanation !
Thanks a lot for your assistance and your support, sir
Thank you so much! I had trouble understanding it before, but this video really helped!
This was amazing!
Thank you very much, Sir.
Einfach super, vielen Dank! :)
Excellently explained.! Thank you.!
really good and explicite presentation.thx
wonderful session
What is the general view in the linguistic community about the Searle vs. Derrida debate (or non-debate) about speech acts that happened in the early 70s?
thanks for the information
I guess that will depend on the power relationship between you and that person. Not the actual one, but the power relationship that each speaker BELIEVES he has with the other one. The observer must know what each of them thinks his position of power is before attempting to name the many potential meanings.
thank you it's very helpful 😇😇
Thanks a million,Sir 🙏🌹
thanks for the insight! but what is speech act now helpful for? what problems does it solve in meaning?
Since you brought him up, why does Chomsky dismiss Searl? Would he likewise dismiss pragmatics as making no substantive contribution to linguistics?
Well done and good lecture.
Very clear and Thanks a lot
Thank u so much. it really helped me to understand a lot.
Thank you so much!!!
just amazing
thank you!
I like the explanation because it's easy to understand. but could you please explain perlocutionary acts more? I don't really understand that
and if not is it really legitimate to analyze language or arguments via logic? Thanks!
Thank you so much
very good,
Thank you more
is it possible to get full meaning of a sentence or word without pragmatics? Without context?
I have a problem with the locution,prellocution and illocution please help!
thanks
you saved my day
VERY NICE
May I ask what software is being used in this lecture?
Thank you sir
How about Rogatives?
Jurgen, in der Tat kannst du to my party coming. :)
Are all utterances speech acts?
good
I still don't know the difference of Directive and Declaration...
if i watched and subs'ed you, i would not repeat my semantic class in my last year of college.
Good evening my research topic is about 'Speech Act theory in Teaching student's can you help me please with any new idea?
watch your a's!
thank you
Thank you so much