The Mechanics of Indirectness: A Case Study of Directive Speech Acts

This dissertation investigates the comprehension of indirect requests (IRs). Focusing on English and French, it proposes that IRs such as Can you + verbal phrase (for short, Can you VP?) achieve an optimal communicative efficiency because, while they entail extra processing costs, they match the expected level of politeness in many contexts. The approach taken combines Talmy’s force dynamic semantics with a traditional perspective in philosophy of language drawing on speech act theory. First, I sketch a theoretically viable and empirically plausible definition of directive speech acts, and provide a naturalistic explanation of why directives result in obligations for addressees. According to this definition, a directive speech act consists in a force exerted by a speaker towards an addressee’s performance of some action, with a prima facie obligation created for the addressee as a result. Consistently with this definition, I propose that imperative sentences are a convenient means to perform directives insofar as they encode a force dynamic pattern that is compatible with, but distinct from, the force exertion pattern that characterizes directives. I develop a similar analysis for You should/must VP declarative sentences. By contrast, I argue that, if interrogative sentences can be used in the performance of directives such as questioning, they do so by virtue of their incompleteness.To satisfactorily account for the variety of utterances that can be used as directives, I propose a typology based on the formal criterion of (in)directness and on the processing criterion of primariness/secondariness. Three factors are furthermore predicted to influence the processing of IRs: conventionality of means, degree of standardization, and degree of illocutionary force salience. This typology underpins an exhaustive review of experimental work on the comprehension of directives, in which I conclude that further investigation into the processing of IRs is necessary. In particular, the influence of these three factors on the processing, and, in particular, on the primariness/secondariness of IRs is left unexplored.In three eye-tracking experiments with native speakers of French, I put to the test four hypotheses. First, I hypothesize that the more an expression is standardized for the performance of IRs, the more likely it will be understood as an IR, and the more likely the IR will be primary rather than secondary. Second, because expressions such as Can you VP? used as IRs also have a direct interpretation, they should entail extra processing costs relative to their imperative and interrogative direct counterparts. Third, assuming they are direct, You must VP requests should be understood like imperatives requests, and they should not activate the assertive force. Fourth, the high degree of directive illocutionary force salience contributed by the adverb please should increase the likelihood of an IR interpretation and the likelihood that the IR will be primary. In Experiment 1, I show that IR interpretations tend to be more frequent for highly standardized IRs relative to their less standardized counterparts. I also demonstrate that interpreting the highly standardized Can you VP? and the less standardized Is it possible to VP? as IRs does not activate their “ability question” illocutionary meaning. The same finding holds, in Experiment 2, for the declaratives You can VP and It is possible to VP. The data of Experiment 2 indicate that, like imperative sentences, You must VP does not activate the assertive illocutionary force. Another finding of Experiment 1 is that Can you VP? and Is it possible to VP? can be understood as primary IRs, but these expressions nonetheless impose extra processing costs when they are interpreted as direct questions. In Experiment 3, I find that the high degree of directive force salience contributed by please increases the likelihood of an IR interpretation regardless of the degree of standardization of the expression. However, the presence of please has no significant influence on the processing of IRs.Turning to the production of directives, I address the issue of why speakers use IRs despite the extra processing costs entailed by these expressions. In a production task experiment where addressee status is manipulated, I test the hypothesis that Can you VP? IRs are used to trigger extra politeness effects absent in imperatives. A second hypothesis is that speakers should avoid imperatives and obligation declaratives such as You should/must VP because these request forms are directly compatible with force exertion at the pragmatic level. Rather, they should prefer indirect request forms such as ability interrogatives. Third, Can you VP? it should be more frequent than Is it possible to VP? in the data. A first important finding is that higher addressee status does not increase the frequency of Can you VP? interrogatives relative to other request forms. Instead of using Can you VP? more often when they address higher status people, speakers use specific politeness markers, which disconfirms the hypothesis that Can you VP? is used to convey extra politeness effects. The second hypothesis is confirmed, insofar as the data collected with this production task contain a vast majority of ability interrogatives, and imperatives and obligation declaratives are absent. Third, in line with the standardization hypothesis, Can you VP? occur much more often in the data than Is it possible to VP?.Doctorat en Langues, lettres et traductologie