Journal of PIagma1.k:; 4 (1980) 83-56 0 North-Holland Publishing Compary

Ekkehard Kiinig, Fawn und FM’ition. Eine funktkvwl~ Betrachtmg ausgerv&rlter Bwdche des Engliwhen. Tubingen: Niemeyer. 1977. pp. 98. {Anghstische Arbeits- hefte 13).

A preliminary chapter on language functions (Biihler’s modelj discusses early forerunners of a functional approach to language analysis, such as Buhler, Jakob- son, and more rl:cen.:ly Halliday and Kanngiesser. (Mention is &al made of L.eech- Svartvik’s grammar which is one of the landmarks of the didactic applicatiotr of a functional approach.)

This is foliowed up by a second chapter on speech act theory and the different ways of categorizing speech acts as adopted by Austin, Searle and JZ_ :rmas respec- tively (despite these a.nll Feveral other remarkable attempts, still an unresolved prob- lem).

There is one point about speech acts which the author tries to emphasize: they can be perfo.r;-c! according to different models (nach mehrwm Mtstesn)~ models that are ditferent ltnd complex communicative models, apart from the fact that dif- ferent models of surface structure are used for their .:xpression. Speech acts usually arp fit:- from exp\Yt, imtl in quite the majority of cases far from simple. We really do a lot of things at the szme time when/by using WW.,.~. and we usually do not tell our partners exphcitly what we are t rymg to do. TIw 2 is a range of activities, iin-

guistic and other, that gcr on simultaneously. The performative formula is the ex:eption rather t’-~ !he r~!e, and what is really meant by what a speaker has said in a certain way CFI only be found out by consulting the textual and situatiorrc.1 context.

The author’s main concern is the relationship between the formal and the func- tional aspects of speech .Icts.

The author has previously dealt with the de FcrJlption and explanation of language functions by examining the different things that can be achieved: by using a singu!ar qpeciric surface structure, instead of investigating the different devices by which a certain language function can be realized.

Kbnig wants his funclional analysis to be distinguished from what thl: Prague school of linguistics called functional, as this i.3 aimed at an analysis of textuality, whereas Kiinig’s understanding of i:he term ‘functional’ has to do with the action potential (Handbgsptestiol) of J+terances within macro-sociolingurstic environ- ments.

The second part of the book is devoted to the discussion of certain struct urcs II:

spoken English usage centred round the so-called tag-questions. ‘I Ire author rejects the so-caLled ~clF~~nl~~tmrrsfor~l~ti~~ for the generation of t:,gged sentences as advocated by Klima (1964) on the grounds that tagged imperativs (be yttief, can’t pu?) cznnot be explained in this way.

Tags (reversed-polarity tag:, and constant -polarity tags) are, according to KBnig, reduced interrogative &uses sr:? c;il ry different (eight, accocding to O’Connor 1968) imanational pa:tetns, by which different degrees of certainty are expressed. Tags always express the speaker’s wish to obtain confirmation. Speakers usually

expect disagreemenf with the proposition expressed in the interrogative tag. Not necessarily do interrogative tags seek information (business is business, isn’t it?).

As a consequence oj: the pragmatic approach the special casz of sentences con- :aining verbs like srd~~p~se, gtress etc. in the first person singular in the subject noun- phrase, in which the tag does not take up the verb of the ‘main clause’ as usual, can be explained: it would be beside the point for the speaker to seek confirmation of his own performative, cp: .I suppose Jdn itas left, ham ‘t he with: * 1 srrppose Juhrl has left, don ‘t I?

Constant-po!arity rags occur only in informal convdrsational settings, always with a low rise intonational pattern: They \ help you, \ do they? Since they express L kind of agreement between speaker and hearer that must have been reached during interaction and by communicating, they can not be used as opening moves; they do not try to impart information but signal congruity of opinion to the hearer.

Sesides, they can express emotional attitudes, even incredulousness, aggressive dnd sarcastic overtones, but these functions ate secondary ones, related with the one mentioned above, viz. to tell t!le hearer that the speaker knows all about what I ‘;L :!5lks (A: It’s so simple. B; It’s so simple, is it?).

Tags after imperatives do not contain modal verbs that have been used in the prece&;-lg main clause. Moreover, Konig observes that the explanation proposed by Davisor, (1975), to derive tagged imperatives fro:n interrogtitivc clauses by a trans- fonna:ion called fracturing, sentence-raising (won ‘t yctr sit duu.;n = si,* down, won ‘f YW) dI.les nat apply with imperatives containing let’s.

As LO intonational patterns in tagged imperatives, falling intonaton in the im- perative and I’LIW rise in the tag is used with direct speech acts, can bf: used with any modal verb and signalizes equality of the interactarts. it occurs in requests, invita- tions. Again ilragmatic considerations are responsible for the differt:nce between Be \ cdmfui, ‘\ WAV ‘f you and Be \ careful, won ‘t you where the latter expissses assymmetrica!l relationship between the interactants; besides the other difference that the former also relates to future behavior.

The problem, which modal verb combines with which imperatives can also be tackled from a functional point of view. Imperative and tag G;P not combine if they express diver;gent speech acts. Thus, Don’t tell her and h&rt’~ :YW tufl her do not combir&e to result in *DcMI’~ tell her, won ‘t you?

There is 2 certain class of lexical items the distrjbution of which is characterized by the fact rha: they do cr do not occur alongside with negative or affirmative

expressions respectively. Moreover, there are those elemerts that have a comple- ment.3ry ‘par tner’-element , i3. pairs like some/ati_v, ulready/vet and the like. Eady generative a :empts at an analysis of these cases that sta;tetr from purely syntactic distributional criteria are un:;atisfactnry. A new gista of passible explanation was opened up when Klima (1964) introduced a class of lexical elements he c;illcd Advcrsatives (e.g. clvoid, relucltant, only, too) which hsve in common some kind of semantic affinity with elements like same/any. This serves to explain uhy We WE surprised thrPt John said anything is acceptable, wherea!; *We are surprised that

John sati sorwthin,r is not; why the ‘opposite’ of He was eager to see some more patients should necessarily be He wus reluctant to see any more atients; and why If YOU eat airy candy, III WI:@ you is a threat, whereas If you eut sOi)le caudy, 1’11 mivrfip)‘OL4 is either unacceptable or a (rather mast&stic) promise.

H. I lkoff’ in her discussion of Klima’s interpretation arrives at the conclusion (1963) that ir is the speaker’s expectation (in interrogative sentences) or his inten- tion [in if*clauses). or his ss:;umptions (in declarative sentences), rather than syntactic or logical con;idcrations, that decide which lexical elements to choose. Kiinig shows in it series of examples that the illocutionarv force of sentences of similar semantic, i.e. propositional content is indicated by such polarity elements:

Why hasn’t John done something to end the war? (reproacll) Why hasn ‘t John dune anythi&r tu end t,,be war? (question) Wrty don’t you sing any more? (question) Why don ‘t you sing some more? (suggestion)

Some is used in speech acts thilt aim a? changing something about the state ui

things in reality; speech acts that try to prevent such changes use any:

Unless you say something I ‘II scrm~t Stop him before ht? does anythiqr.

A whole gamut of’ speech acts is verbalized in wwmces iike the following, all of them negative interrogatives as far 3s their syntactic structure is concerned:

Won ‘t you sit down? Lhm ‘r you want to go jbr a walk? Can “r you a’rive straght? &en ‘t you working toduy ? Isn ‘t she pri: tty l

The problclm of the generahzable conditions of use at the back of these negative interrogative clauses is a difficult one, and at the present state of the art of prag- matics no sinz{le interpretatiorr seems feasible. Still, Kiinig att?‘rilptS to ge? wme

general observations out of his material: negative interrogatrqes slways imply that an answer is ltixpecte& which is why they rare called Gased or conducive questions. Whether an irffirmatjve or 3 negative answer is expected is ind!cated by certain

86

pGu-ity-senative elements:

Dtwr ‘t you huve unyfsimc cigurs? MIS he gent? alrut;c&? (expresses the speaker’s expectation thar this should or might be the case) VS. MIS he gone .YC~? (avoids the expression of any cxpccta- t ion).

Negative interrogatives can function as a means of exclamation or comment:

Moreover, all sorts of negated interrogatives can function as forms of reproach (kind or otherwise); if thrty contain negative polarity-elements they are less useful for the expression of this speech act.

A functional starting-point certainly means an enrichm~*nt of analysis and adds another dimension beyond syntactic and logical criteria. Still, there remain prob- lems for further investif.ation. E.g. there seems, contrary ?o Kiinlg’s opinion, ?o exist a dift’farence in mrBaning, i.e. function, betweeq Come here, will you? and Come here, won’t you? (the latter seemingly expresses much more rigi& a com- mand). Whether Kiinig is right in saying that intonation patterns in inlperativcs do not always revc:al functional differences, remains to be proved.

The thsorctical discussions are interspersed with, and exemplified by a fair znlount of examples from English usage; moreover, they are followed up by tasks to be solved by the reader which can fiJnction as a proof and reinforcement of the reader’s understanding 311~1 tl;c tne;hodological ways by which he arrived at his find. inps. These should nl:+ke the book useful as a teaching device at the University lcvcl.

A fair exam@ of applied linguistics. c1r rather of applying it.

Karl Sornig lnstit ut fiir Sprachwissenschaft

University of Graz Craz, Austria

Referemes

Davison. A. 1975. ‘Indirect speech xts and wh,it to do with them’?. In: P. Cole a~id J. Morg:m, LUds.. Syntax ancl semntics 111, Spetxtl i\CtS. P!tw York: Academic P.Css, pp. 143--J 85.

Klim, I<. 1964. ‘Negation in EIngtish’. In: J. I-‘od~or and J. Katz, eds., The struclurc of lnnguqe: rr~dmps in the philosophy of language. tnglewood C’liffs, NJ: Prentice Halt. pp. 246-323.

LAoif, R. 1969. Some rea:,ons why there can’t be ally scmc-1~1~~ rule. Language 45: 608-6 15. W’WUW~, J.D. 1966. The intonation of tag questions in English. English Srudm 36: 96,--l OS.

Jlibfl Somid. born 1928, studied at the German dnd English Departments of the Universities of Crsz and Nottingham. 1951, took his degree of 1)r.phi.l. 195X-72, worked at youth hostels and boarding schools in Austria, taught college in Istanbul, besides lecturing at Isranbul University, was a high school teacher in Austria, 1972-, Oberassistent at the Lingi!istics Department, Uni- vcrsity of Graz (working under Professor N. Denison). Main interests: sozioling\iAic$ semantic!; lrnd Pr:gm;i!inguistics.