Advanced

Konfliktäre Sprechhandlungen : Eine Untersuchung der Sprechakte "Vorwurf", "Drohung" und "konfliktäre Warnung"

Henriksson, Carola LU (2004) 66.
Abstract
This thesis investigates the three so called “conflictory speech acts” (“konfliktäre Sprechakte”) “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning”. They all have in common that the speaker signals that he/she is prepared for a verbal conflict. The aim of the study is to describe the three speech acts, to unite them into a group of coflictory speech acts, and to find out what their similarities and differences are. To reach this aim, we must first investigate each speech act separately as an elementary speech act, then define it and discover what indicators can be used to identify it. One main hypothesis is that reproach, threat and conflictory warning are not classifiable as basic speech acts since they operate on a “secondary speech act... (More)
This thesis investigates the three so called “conflictory speech acts” (“konfliktäre Sprechakte”) “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning”. They all have in common that the speaker signals that he/she is prepared for a verbal conflict. The aim of the study is to describe the three speech acts, to unite them into a group of coflictory speech acts, and to find out what their similarities and differences are. To reach this aim, we must first investigate each speech act separately as an elementary speech act, then define it and discover what indicators can be used to identify it. One main hypothesis is that reproach, threat and conflictory warning are not classifiable as basic speech acts since they operate on a “secondary speech act level”. It is discussed further what is implied by a “conflict” and how conflictory speech acts, as described in the literature relate to the conflictory speech acts investigated and defined in this study. It is also important to analyze the coflictory speech acts in the discourse in which they occur. The material investigated in this study consists of two parliamentary debates in the German ”Bundestag” where these types of speech acts often occur. On the basis of politeness theories it is investigated how reproach, threat and conflictory warning can be “face-threatening” to the hearer, how the hearer is provoked by them and which alternatives he/she has to react. It is investigated further which types and patterns of conflictory speech act sequences can be identified in the two parliamentary debates. The investigation of the three conflictory speech acts in the parliamentary debate as an argumentative discourse is linked to another aim of this study: to find out how the three conflictory speech acts “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning” relate to the concepts “argumentation” and “fallacy”. The different theories defining these concepts, such as speech act theory and argumentation theories, are discussed, since reproach, threat and conflictory warning are described as elementary speech acts, and argumentation and fallacy are more complex than elementary speech acts. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
supervisor
opponent
  • Professor Gülich, Elisabeth, Universität Bielefeld
organization
publishing date
type
Thesis
publication status
published
subject
keywords
argumentation, provokation, provoke, illocution, Speech act, reproach, complaint, prosecution, accusation, threat, warning, conflict, evaluation, emotion, relation, indirect speech acts, implicit speech acts, performative, politeness, speech act sequences, speech act patterns, metaphor, theme, ad hominem, ad baculum, discourse theory, textlinguistics, illocution sequences, face-threatening acts, illocution patterns, argument, fallacy, parliamentary debate, discussion, logic, German language and literatur, Tyska (språk och litteratur)
volume
66
pages
188 pages
publisher
Almqvist & Wiksell International
defense location
Sal L403, tyska institutionen, Helgonabacken 12, Lund
defense date
2004-11-27 10:15
ISSN
0348-2146
ISBN
91-22-02090-X
language
German
LU publication?
yes
id
fa2337e7-bbc8-490e-a764-04f7ef6a9808 (old id 21875)
date added to LUP
2007-05-28 12:31:58
date last changed
2016-09-19 08:44:56
@phdthesis{fa2337e7-bbc8-490e-a764-04f7ef6a9808,
  abstract     = {This thesis investigates the three so called “conflictory speech acts” (“konfliktäre Sprechakte”) “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning”. They all have in common that the speaker signals that he/she is prepared for a verbal conflict. The aim of the study is to describe the three speech acts, to unite them into a group of coflictory speech acts, and to find out what their similarities and differences are. To reach this aim, we must first investigate each speech act separately as an elementary speech act, then define it and discover what indicators can be used to identify it. One main hypothesis is that reproach, threat and conflictory warning are not classifiable as basic speech acts since they operate on a “secondary speech act level”. It is discussed further what is implied by a “conflict” and how conflictory speech acts, as described in the literature relate to the conflictory speech acts investigated and defined in this study. It is also important to analyze the coflictory speech acts in the discourse in which they occur. The material investigated in this study consists of two parliamentary debates in the German ”Bundestag” where these types of speech acts often occur. On the basis of politeness theories it is investigated how reproach, threat and conflictory warning can be “face-threatening” to the hearer, how the hearer is provoked by them and which alternatives he/she has to react. It is investigated further which types and patterns of conflictory speech act sequences can be identified in the two parliamentary debates. The investigation of the three conflictory speech acts in the parliamentary debate as an argumentative discourse is linked to another aim of this study: to find out how the three conflictory speech acts “reproach”, “threat” and “conflictory warning” relate to the concepts “argumentation” and “fallacy”. The different theories defining these concepts, such as speech act theory and argumentation theories, are discussed, since reproach, threat and conflictory warning are described as elementary speech acts, and argumentation and fallacy are more complex than elementary speech acts.},
  author       = {Henriksson, Carola},
  isbn         = {91-22-02090-X},
  issn         = {0348-2146},
  keyword      = {argumentation,provokation,provoke,illocution,Speech act,reproach,complaint,prosecution,accusation,threat,warning,conflict,evaluation,emotion,relation,indirect speech acts,implicit speech acts,performative,politeness,speech act sequences,speech act patterns,metaphor,theme,ad hominem,ad baculum,discourse theory,textlinguistics,illocution sequences,face-threatening acts,illocution patterns,argument,fallacy,parliamentary debate,discussion,logic,German language and literatur,Tyska (språk och litteratur)},
  language     = {ger},
  pages        = {188},
  publisher    = {Almqvist & Wiksell International},
  school       = {Lund University},
  title        = {Konfliktäre Sprechhandlungen : Eine Untersuchung der Sprechakte "Vorwurf", "Drohung" und "konfliktäre Warnung"},
  volume       = {66},
  year         = {2004},
}