- •Ministry of education, science, youth and sports of ukraine state higher educational establishment uzhhorod national university faculty of romance and germanic philology
- •Shovak o.I.
- •Fundamentals of the Theory of Speech Communication
- •Uzhhorod 2012
- •Foreword
- •Lecture 1 Communication theory. Inaugural Lecture Plan
- •Self-check test
- •Reccomended Readings
- •Lecture 2 Communication. Key concepts Plan
- •1. Defining communication
- •2. Communication process
- •Recommended Readings
- •Lecture 3 Models of communication Plan
- •Fig.5 Lasswell's model of the communication
- •1 Context
- •2 Message
- •3 Sender
- •4 Receiver
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •13.Shannon c., Weaver w. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. - Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949.
- •Lecture 4
- •Types of communication
- •2. Communications types
- •2.A.Verbal communication
- •2.B. Nonverbal communication
- •A wink is a type of gesture.
- •Imaginary steering wheel while talking about driving;
- •Interest can be indicated through posture or extended eye contact, such as standing and listening properly.
- •A high five is an example of communicative touch.
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •1.C. Instrumental function
- •1.E. Catharsis
- •1.F. Magic
- •1.G. Ritual Junction
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •Lecture 6 forms of communication Plan
- •Negotiation lasted several days"; "they disagreed but kept an open dialogue";
- •Vulnerability. Dialogue finds participants open to being changed. We speak from a ground that is important to us, but we do not defend that ground at all costs.
- •Recommended Readings
- •Lecture 7
- •General characteristics of the components of
- •Communicative/speech act
- •Indexical expressions;
- •4.C. Sociolinguistic competence
- •4.D. Strategic competence
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •Lecture 8
- •Components of communicative act connected with the
- •Language code.
- •Discourse and discourse analysis
- •4.А. Exchanges
- •I: What's the time?
- •4.B. Conversational success
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •Lecture 9 Text as a result and unit of communication Plan
- •2.A. Functional classification
- •3.A. The nature of text
- •3.B. The nature of discourse
- •Its topic, purpose, and function;
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •Virtanen t. Approaches to Cognition through Text and Discourse (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs). - Mouton De Gruyter, 2004. - 350 p.
- •Communication Styles By Christopher l. Heffner
- •Self-check test
- •Lecture 11 Speech act in the structure of message (communication) Plan
- •In saying, "Watch out, the ground is slippery", Mary performs the speech act of warning Peter to be careful.
- •2.B. Indirect speech acts
- •2.C John Searie's theory of "indirect speech acts "
- •2.D. Analysis using Searle's theory
- •In order to generalize this sketch of an indirect request, Searie proposes a program for the analysis of indirect speech act performances, whatever they are. He makes the following suggestion:
- •Recommended Readings
- •12.Searle j. Speech Acts. — Cambridge University Press, 1969. — 208 p.
- •In mixed-gender groups, at public gatherings, and in many informal conversations, men spend more time talking than do women.
- •In meetings, men gain the "floor" more often, and keep the floor for longer periods of time, regardless of their status in the organisation.
- •In professional conferences, women take a less active part in responding to papers.
- •Interrupters are perceived as more successful and driving, but less socially acceptable, reliable, and companionable than the interrupted speaker.
- •In getting an appropriate balance on these three consider the following:
- •Instead of asking open-ended questions such as, "How is the project going?", ask closed questions such as "when can we expect the report of the data structures?"
- •Self-check test
- •Recommended Readings
- •Interpersonal Communication: Evolving Interpersonal Relationships. - Hillsdale, nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. - 1993.
2.C John Searie's theory of "indirect speech acts "
J.Searle has introduced the notion of an “indirect speech act”, which in his account is meant to be, more particularly, an indirect “illocutionary” act. Applying a conception of such illocutionary acts according to which they are (roughly) acts of saying something with the intention of communicating with an audience, he describes indirect speech acts as follows: "In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the hearer more than he actually says by way of relying on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, together with the general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer." An account of such act, it follows, will require such things as an analysis of mutually shared background information about the conversation, as well as of rationality and linguistic conventions. In connection with indirect speech acts, Searie introduces the notions of “primary” and “secondary” illocutionary acts. The primary illocutionary act is the indirect one, which is not literally performed. The secondary illocutionary act is the direct one, performed in the literal utterance of the sentence (Searie 178). In the example:
Speaker X: "We should leave for the show or else we’ll be late."
Speaker Y: "I am not ready yet."
Here the primary illocutionary act is Y's rejection of X's suggestion, and the secondary illocutionary act is Y's statement that she is not ready to leave. By dividing the illocutionary act into two subparts, Searie is able to explain that we can understand two meanings from the same utterance all the while knowing which is the correct meaning to respond to. With his doctrine of indirect speech acts Searie attempts to explain how it is possible that a speaker can say something and mean it, but additionally mean something else. This would be impossible, or at least it would be an improbable case, if in such a case the hearer had no chance of figuring out what the speaker means (over and above what she says and means). Searle's solution is that the hearer can figure out what the indirect speech act is meant to be, and he gives several hints as to how this might happen. For the previous example a condensed process might look like this:
Step 1: A proposal is made by X, and Y responded by means of an illocutionary act (2).
Step 2: X assumes that Y is cooperating in the conversation, being sincere, and that she has made a statement that is relevant.
Step 3: The literal meaning of (2) is not relevant to the conversation.
Step 4: Since X assumes that Y is cooperating; there must be another meaning to (2).
Step 5: Based on mutually shared background information, X knows that they cannot leave until Y is ready. Therefore, Y has rejected X's proposition.
Step 6: X knows that Y has said something in something other than the literal meaning, and the primary illocutionary act must have been the rejection of X's proposal.