Inter species Regional dialect
This project aims to quierie the relesionship between mans understanding of birds utterences, but also the crossing of régional dialects.
the video is an introduction to the video piece featuring the artist Nicolas William Hughes
Sunday, 21 November 2010
Monday, 7 June 2010
Participatory experiment
I decided to experiment with a human interaction. I realised that the project up until this point had been a collaboration between myself and the birds. I wanted to mutate the project to form a collaboration with a human audience. I formed these collaborations working with shell shock theatre company and the forest fringe micro festivals. In Swansea and Bristol I invited the audience to "come and have conversations with birds", the audience then came out to a specific location on a patch of grass within both city centres. I then performed my bird song to the audience, then handed out paper and pens to the audience and asked them to draw the bird in their mind accompanying them with bird song as they drew, I then asked the audience to write down(in onomatopoeia) the sound that their bird made, This was followed by myself asking the audience to each read out their bird sounds.
A conversation was then commenced in which I played my recorded bird song and the audience replied with their bird song.
the video's audio is not up to scratch here but the video shows a trace of what occurred.
A conversation was then commenced in which I played my recorded bird song and the audience replied with their bird song.
the video's audio is not up to scratch here but the video shows a trace of what occurred.
Traces of Participatory Projects.
Here are some photos along with some audio snippets of audience reactions to the conversations with birds participatory experiments
Some other Contemporary projects based around bird and human interaction
Marcus Coates. Utilises ancient shamanistic theory in an attempt to contact the natural world in order to better understand the human world and human psyche.
Nic Green: I am finishing an MSc in human ecology and have studied Ecopsychology as part of it. My main area of focus in this is how art as a place of agency can be a spiritual praxis, or a practice of reconnection with others and the other-than-human world.
Nic Green did a performance strictly for the birds the documented for human viewers to witness. Green became a bird table and waited for birds to land and eat.
http://www.nicgreen.org.uk/
Nic Green: I am finishing an MSc in human ecology and have studied Ecopsychology as part of it. My main area of focus in this is how art as a place of agency can be a spiritual praxis, or a practice of reconnection with others and the other-than-human world.
Nic Green did a performance strictly for the birds the documented for human viewers to witness. Green became a bird table and waited for birds to land and eat.
http://www.nicgreen.org.uk/
Thursday, 13 May 2010
reengaging with humans, mutating the project for human participation
So far the project has been a collaboration with the Birds, I decided the project needed to have human collaborative elements, In other projects I have been working on, I have been exploring into creativity through participatory(or interactive) projects. As such I mutated Conversations with Birds into a participatory project where a human audience took the place of the birds as collaborators for the work, exploring memory and imagination whilst working with creativity. I became a conductor for the creative output of the individuals involved.
I did the performance as usual in front of the audience/collaborators, then asked the audience to draw the bird they had in their mind, I the asked the audience to write down (in onomatopoeia terms) the sound that they thought their bird would make, using these sounds myself and the audience then engaged in a conversation, Myself with my recorded bird song and the audience with their newly acquired bird sounds
I did the performance as usual in front of the audience/collaborators, then asked the audience to draw the bird they had in their mind, I the asked the audience to write down (in onomatopoeia terms) the sound that they thought their bird would make, using these sounds myself and the audience then engaged in a conversation, Myself with my recorded bird song and the audience with their newly acquired bird sounds
Back to a more natural environment,
I started to do more videos in a highly familiar environment for me: My parents garden, This is where the project began taking shape as i recorded and playedback the utterances of different birds that entered the garden conversations formed and i soon found myself talking to the birds, full conversations with replies from the birds,
Wednesday, 5 May 2010
Into the city, juxtaposing sound in the urban environment
I took the recordings that I had made in a rural countryside environment to the city, and tried my performances in this urban environment, this was a test that was a learning curve, I found that the urban environment didn't lend its self well to these performances, I felt more in the background of everyday life and it did not emphasise the birds utterances in the way i had hoped, I wanted both people and the birds to engage with it. This learning curve helped to develop the project.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
First performance, February
For Conversations with Birds I started out by recording bird song and my intention was to use a P.A. system to blast the sound back into the environment, this was going o be a one off unrecorded performance. I soon changed my ideas when I realized that no one would actually know that this performance had occurred(which was my intention) but this almost introverted approach would not have worked. I decided to use a different approach by purchasing a megaphone to emphasize the recorded bird song, i then used video to document these performances.
An introduction to the utterances of birds,
No matter where we live, the songs of birds brighten up our days. This is nature’s orchestra at its best. The early morning chirps of a robin or chickadee delight us, and the sound of a honking flock of migrating geese inspire us. There is an incredible diversity. Some birds have their songs encoded at birth, while others learn their songs, either from their father, or from birds around them. Some of those that learn their songs only learn when they are young, and others keep learning their entire life. Some species may sing the same song but have different dialects from one area to another. Some birds such as the Brown thrasher, may have hundreds or thousands of different songs, while others such as the Common Yellowthroat, may have as little as one.
While bird watching is enjoyable, learning the songs and calls of birds adds an exciting dimension to it. Being able to identify unseen birds from a distance, when they are hidden in the bush or a wooded habitat, by listening to their songs and calls is very satisfying. Many people do what is called spishing, where they make a (spis) sound with their lips. Another technique is kissing the back of your hand to make a squeaking sound. Some songbirds such as chickadees and warblers will come to check out the sound.
A Bit of History

The first record of bird song recording was by Ludwig Koch in 1889. At the time Ludwig was eight years old. He recorded the Indian Shama, a member of the Thrush family. Many years later after Dr. Koch moved to Britain from Germany he worked with E.M Nicholson. E.M Nicholson became the director of the Nature Conservancy creating the book “Songs of Wild Birds. Dr. Koch’s sound recordings became the base for the BBC’s natural history library. As you can imagine the recording equipment at that time was very cumbersome.
Communication of Bird Songs and Calls
Songs and calls play a very important role in the live of birds. With all the ways birds communicate sound is probably the most important. Because birds do not have a strong sense of smell they rely on vision and sound. Sound is ideal for low light or over long distances.
Basic Difference between Songs and Calls
Songs
Songs are more musical, and complex then calls. Songs are usually only produced by the male. Males often learn these songs from their dads or by listening to nearby males. Because they learn these musical phrases regional dialects are often developed. A male’s song may get richer, and more varied as he gets more experience with age. This gives him a bit of an edge over younger birds. When the female chooses a mate she will evaluate his health and maturity by this song. With most birds the song can be associated with breeding. The male is singing to find or communicate with his mate and to claim and protect his territory by warning other males to stay away. Social bonding of pairs may also be aided with songs.
The majority of the singing is in early morning. The birds will be quiet during the middle of the day, and start up again in late afternoon, although there are some species that will sing all day long.
Song birds such as warblers may have different songs for attracting mates than they do for protecting their territory. Some birds such as Meadow larks will do a duet where each partner contributes phrases to the song. A male Red-winged blackbirds will sing while the female chatters back at him.
Male songbirds may do what is known as countersigning during territorial disputes. In this contest each bird will match the other bird's song types. One bird famous for this is the Marsh wren.
Some songbirds are known for imitating the sounds of other birds and animals. Mockingbirds will even imitate machinery. European starlings, catbirds, and thrashers are imitators. Blue Jays will imitate the call of a hawk. There are two types of songs. The loud primary song we usually hear a male singing, and soft songs that are called whisper song.
Calls
Calls are usually not as musical as songs. They are usually only a few short notes, and may be heard throughout the year. Birds use calls to communicate many things to each other, and between members of a flock or family. Contact calls may be used to give others information such as a birds location. There are calls for aggression, warning, identification, flocking, hunger, to announce a food source, and many others. Many species will have calls that specify a certain type of predator in the area. Some calls are understood by more than one species. A recent fascinating study by scientists at the Universities of Washington, and Montana found that nuthatches understand chickadee calls. When chickadees warn that predatory bird is near, the nuthatches will band together with them to surround the predator in an attempt to drive it away. Young birds give begging calls to get their parents to feed them. Although calls are used for communication, that communication is in the present. Here is an example of what I mean. You may tell a friend you left your keys at his house yesterday. Birds have not developed the mental capacity for this, and can only communicate something happening right now such as a warning call.
Sound Production
Birds have a sound-producing organ called the syrnx. The syrnix is near the bottom of their windpipe, where it divides into the main bronchial tubes that lead to the lungs. The membranes are like the skin of a drum, and vibrate as air is pushed out through them. Pairs of muscles control the tension on the membranes to change the sound characteristics. The number and complexity of these muscles vary with different species, and if fact between male and female. The syrnix is divided into two compartments, one for each lung. These can be controlled separately, and sounds from each can be combined. This is why birds such as starlings, and mockingbirds can make such varied sounds, and are such good imitators. Birds Hearing is also Important. Their hearing is much the same as ours. One big advantage is that they have developed sense of time resolution, which is about 10 times better than ours. What does this mean? Several separate notes in sequence may sound to us like one long note. Because of their time resolution ability they hear the note separated into the smaller segments. This allows more information to be communicated. One way to visualize this is to compare it to a piece of movie film. When run through a projector we can’t see the separation. Scientists today use sound spectrographs to study these.
Below is both the sound and visual image of a simple robin chirp. It sounds to us like two notes. In the image you can see the separation that birds can hear.
While bird watching is enjoyable, learning the songs and calls of birds adds an exciting dimension to it. Being able to identify unseen birds from a distance, when they are hidden in the bush or a wooded habitat, by listening to their songs and calls is very satisfying. Many people do what is called spishing, where they make a (spis) sound with their lips. Another technique is kissing the back of your hand to make a squeaking sound. Some songbirds such as chickadees and warblers will come to check out the sound.
A Bit of History

The first record of bird song recording was by Ludwig Koch in 1889. At the time Ludwig was eight years old. He recorded the Indian Shama, a member of the Thrush family. Many years later after Dr. Koch moved to Britain from Germany he worked with E.M Nicholson. E.M Nicholson became the director of the Nature Conservancy creating the book “Songs of Wild Birds. Dr. Koch’s sound recordings became the base for the BBC’s natural history library. As you can imagine the recording equipment at that time was very cumbersome.
Communication of Bird Songs and Calls
Songs and calls play a very important role in the live of birds. With all the ways birds communicate sound is probably the most important. Because birds do not have a strong sense of smell they rely on vision and sound. Sound is ideal for low light or over long distances.
Basic Difference between Songs and Calls
Songs
Songs are more musical, and complex then calls. Songs are usually only produced by the male. Males often learn these songs from their dads or by listening to nearby males. Because they learn these musical phrases regional dialects are often developed. A male’s song may get richer, and more varied as he gets more experience with age. This gives him a bit of an edge over younger birds. When the female chooses a mate she will evaluate his health and maturity by this song. With most birds the song can be associated with breeding. The male is singing to find or communicate with his mate and to claim and protect his territory by warning other males to stay away. Social bonding of pairs may also be aided with songs.
The majority of the singing is in early morning. The birds will be quiet during the middle of the day, and start up again in late afternoon, although there are some species that will sing all day long.
Song birds such as warblers may have different songs for attracting mates than they do for protecting their territory. Some birds such as Meadow larks will do a duet where each partner contributes phrases to the song. A male Red-winged blackbirds will sing while the female chatters back at him.
Male songbirds may do what is known as countersigning during territorial disputes. In this contest each bird will match the other bird's song types. One bird famous for this is the Marsh wren.
Some songbirds are known for imitating the sounds of other birds and animals. Mockingbirds will even imitate machinery. European starlings, catbirds, and thrashers are imitators. Blue Jays will imitate the call of a hawk. There are two types of songs. The loud primary song we usually hear a male singing, and soft songs that are called whisper song.
Calls
Calls are usually not as musical as songs. They are usually only a few short notes, and may be heard throughout the year. Birds use calls to communicate many things to each other, and between members of a flock or family. Contact calls may be used to give others information such as a birds location. There are calls for aggression, warning, identification, flocking, hunger, to announce a food source, and many others. Many species will have calls that specify a certain type of predator in the area. Some calls are understood by more than one species. A recent fascinating study by scientists at the Universities of Washington, and Montana found that nuthatches understand chickadee calls. When chickadees warn that predatory bird is near, the nuthatches will band together with them to surround the predator in an attempt to drive it away. Young birds give begging calls to get their parents to feed them. Although calls are used for communication, that communication is in the present. Here is an example of what I mean. You may tell a friend you left your keys at his house yesterday. Birds have not developed the mental capacity for this, and can only communicate something happening right now such as a warning call.
Sound Production
Birds have a sound-producing organ called the syrnx. The syrnix is near the bottom of their windpipe, where it divides into the main bronchial tubes that lead to the lungs. The membranes are like the skin of a drum, and vibrate as air is pushed out through them. Pairs of muscles control the tension on the membranes to change the sound characteristics. The number and complexity of these muscles vary with different species, and if fact between male and female. The syrnix is divided into two compartments, one for each lung. These can be controlled separately, and sounds from each can be combined. This is why birds such as starlings, and mockingbirds can make such varied sounds, and are such good imitators. Birds Hearing is also Important. Their hearing is much the same as ours. One big advantage is that they have developed sense of time resolution, which is about 10 times better than ours. What does this mean? Several separate notes in sequence may sound to us like one long note. Because of their time resolution ability they hear the note separated into the smaller segments. This allows more information to be communicated. One way to visualize this is to compare it to a piece of movie film. When run through a projector we can’t see the separation. Scientists today use sound spectrographs to study these.
Below is both the sound and visual image of a simple robin chirp. It sounds to us like two notes. In the image you can see the separation that birds can hear.
an introduction to speech act theory, from various sources
Speech act is a technical term in linguistics and the philosophy of language. The contemporary use of the term goes back to John L. Austin's doctrine of locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. Many scholars identify 'speech acts' with illocutionary acts, rather than locutionary or perlocutionary acts. Like with the notion of illocutionary acts, there are different opinions concerning the question what being a speech act amounts to. The extension of speech acts is commonly taken to include such acts as promising, ordering, greeting, warning, inviting someone and congratulating.
Speech act as an illocutionary act
The concept of an illocutionary act is central to, if not identical with, the concept of a speech act. Although there are numerous opinions as to what 'illocutionary acts' actually are, there are some kinds of acts which are widely accepted as illocutionary, as for example promising, ordering someone, and bequeathing.
Following the usage of, for example, John R. Searle, "speech act" is often meant to refer just to the same thing as the term illocutionary act, which John L. Austin had originally introduced in How to Do Things with Words (published posthumously in 1962).
According to Austin's preliminary informal description, the idea of an "illocutionary act" can be captured by emphasising that "by saying something, we do something", as when someone orders someone else to go by saying "Go!", or when a minister joins two people in marriage saying, "I now pronounce you husband and wife." (Austin would eventually define the "illocutionary act" in a more exact manner.)
Austin distinguishes between illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts. An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin calls performatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence you to ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating, sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the sentence itself.
Examples
• Greeting (in saying, "Hi John!", for instance), apologizing ("Sorry for that!"), describing something ("It is snowing"), asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request and giving an order ("Could you pass the salt?" and "Drop your weapon or I'll shoot you!"), or making a promise ("I promise I'll give it back") are typical examples of "speech acts" or "illocutionary acts".
• In saying, "Watch out Peter, the ground is slippery", Mary performs the speech act of warning Peter to be careful.
• In saying, "I will try my best to be at home for dinner", Peter performs the speech act of promising to be at home in time.
• In saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, please give me your attention", Mary requests the audience to be quiet.
• In saying, "Race with me to that building over there!", Peter challenges Mary.
Searle (1975)[1] has set up the following classification of illocutionary speech acts:
• assertives = speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, e.g. reciting a creed
• directives = speech acts that are to cause the hearer to take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands and advice
• commissives = speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, e.g. promises and oaths
• expressives = speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses and thanks
• declarations = speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife
Indirect speech acts
In the course of performing speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the content intended to be communicated, as when a stranger asks, "What is your name?"
However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic means, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the content intended to be communicated. One may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes by just saying, "Peter ...!", or one can promise to do the dishes by saying, "Me!" One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. One may, for instance, say, "Peter, can you open the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to open the window, but also requesting that he do so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an indirect speech act.
Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, a speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection.
This poses a problem for linguists because it is confusing (on a rather simple approach) to see how the person who made the proposal can understand that his proposal was rejected. Following substantially an account of H. P. Grice, Searle suggests that we are able to derive meaning out of indirect speech acts by means of a cooperative process out of which we are able to derive multiple illocutions; however, the process he proposes does not seem to accurately solve the problem. Sociolinguistics has studied the social dimensions of conversations. This discipline considers the various contexts in which speech acts occur.
[edit]
John Searle's theory of "indirect speech acts"
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, Searle 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 (Searle 178). In the example:
(1) Speaker X: "We should leave for the show or else we’ll be late."
(2) 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, Searle 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 Searle 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.
Searle argues that a similar process can be applied to any indirect speech act as a model to find the primary illocutionary act (178). His proof for this argument is made by means of a series of supposed "observations" (ibid., 180-182).
[edit]
Analysis using Searle's theory
In order to generalize this sketch of an indirect request, Searle proposes a program for the analysis of indirect speech act performances, whatever they are. He makes the following suggestion:
Step 1: Understand the facts of the conversation.
Step 2: Assume cooperation and relevance on behalf of the participants.
Step 3: Establish factual background information pertinent to the conversation.
Step 4: Make assumptions about the conversation based on steps 1–3.
Step 5: If steps 1–4 do not yield a consequential meaning, then infer that there are two illocutionary forces at work.
Step 6: Assume the hearer has the ability to perform the act the speaker suggests. The act that the speaker is asking be performed must be something that would make sense for one to ask. For example, the hearer might have the ability to pass the salt when asked to do so by a speaker who is at the same table, but not have the ability to pass the salt to a speaker who is asking the hearer to pass the salt during a telephone conversation.
Step 7: Make inferences from steps 1–6 regarding possible primary illocutions.
Step 8: Use background information to establish the primary illocution (Searle 184).
With this process, Searle concludes that he has found a method that will satisfactorily reconstruct what happens when an indirect speech act is performed.
Speech act as an illocutionary act
The concept of an illocutionary act is central to, if not identical with, the concept of a speech act. Although there are numerous opinions as to what 'illocutionary acts' actually are, there are some kinds of acts which are widely accepted as illocutionary, as for example promising, ordering someone, and bequeathing.
Following the usage of, for example, John R. Searle, "speech act" is often meant to refer just to the same thing as the term illocutionary act, which John L. Austin had originally introduced in How to Do Things with Words (published posthumously in 1962).
According to Austin's preliminary informal description, the idea of an "illocutionary act" can be captured by emphasising that "by saying something, we do something", as when someone orders someone else to go by saying "Go!", or when a minister joins two people in marriage saying, "I now pronounce you husband and wife." (Austin would eventually define the "illocutionary act" in a more exact manner.)
Austin distinguishes between illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts. An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin calls performatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence you to ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating, sentencing, promising) is performed by the utterance of the sentence itself.
Examples
• Greeting (in saying, "Hi John!", for instance), apologizing ("Sorry for that!"), describing something ("It is snowing"), asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request and giving an order ("Could you pass the salt?" and "Drop your weapon or I'll shoot you!"), or making a promise ("I promise I'll give it back") are typical examples of "speech acts" or "illocutionary acts".
• In saying, "Watch out Peter, the ground is slippery", Mary performs the speech act of warning Peter to be careful.
• In saying, "I will try my best to be at home for dinner", Peter performs the speech act of promising to be at home in time.
• In saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, please give me your attention", Mary requests the audience to be quiet.
• In saying, "Race with me to that building over there!", Peter challenges Mary.
Searle (1975)[1] has set up the following classification of illocutionary speech acts:
• assertives = speech acts that commit a speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition, e.g. reciting a creed
• directives = speech acts that are to cause the hearer to take a particular action, e.g. requests, commands and advice
• commissives = speech acts that commit a speaker to some future action, e.g. promises and oaths
• expressives = speech acts that express the speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. congratulations, excuses and thanks
• declarations = speech acts that change the reality in accord with the proposition of the declaration, e.g. baptisms, pronouncing someone guilty or pronouncing someone husband and wife
Indirect speech acts
In the course of performing speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the content intended to be communicated, as when a stranger asks, "What is your name?"
However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic means, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the content intended to be communicated. One may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes by just saying, "Peter ...!", or one can promise to do the dishes by saying, "Me!" One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. One may, for instance, say, "Peter, can you open the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to open the window, but also requesting that he do so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an indirect speech act.
Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, a speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection.
This poses a problem for linguists because it is confusing (on a rather simple approach) to see how the person who made the proposal can understand that his proposal was rejected. Following substantially an account of H. P. Grice, Searle suggests that we are able to derive meaning out of indirect speech acts by means of a cooperative process out of which we are able to derive multiple illocutions; however, the process he proposes does not seem to accurately solve the problem. Sociolinguistics has studied the social dimensions of conversations. This discipline considers the various contexts in which speech acts occur.
[edit]
John Searle's theory of "indirect speech acts"
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, Searle 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 (Searle 178). In the example:
(1) Speaker X: "We should leave for the show or else we’ll be late."
(2) 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, Searle 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 Searle 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.
Searle argues that a similar process can be applied to any indirect speech act as a model to find the primary illocutionary act (178). His proof for this argument is made by means of a series of supposed "observations" (ibid., 180-182).
[edit]
Analysis using Searle's theory
In order to generalize this sketch of an indirect request, Searle proposes a program for the analysis of indirect speech act performances, whatever they are. He makes the following suggestion:
Step 1: Understand the facts of the conversation.
Step 2: Assume cooperation and relevance on behalf of the participants.
Step 3: Establish factual background information pertinent to the conversation.
Step 4: Make assumptions about the conversation based on steps 1–3.
Step 5: If steps 1–4 do not yield a consequential meaning, then infer that there are two illocutionary forces at work.
Step 6: Assume the hearer has the ability to perform the act the speaker suggests. The act that the speaker is asking be performed must be something that would make sense for one to ask. For example, the hearer might have the ability to pass the salt when asked to do so by a speaker who is at the same table, but not have the ability to pass the salt to a speaker who is asking the hearer to pass the salt during a telephone conversation.
Step 7: Make inferences from steps 1–6 regarding possible primary illocutions.
Step 8: Use background information to establish the primary illocution (Searle 184).
With this process, Searle concludes that he has found a method that will satisfactorily reconstruct what happens when an indirect speech act is performed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
