Abstract
Abstract Pragmatics has focused predominantly on the locutionary form and illocutionary force of utterances but largely ignored their perlocutionary effects. A shift toward the perlocutionary would require much greater attention being given to the historical and political context in the production and reception of utterances, as well as to interpretation as a performative process. This paper takes as empirical data a press report on the performance of a particular speech act by Donald Trump and its perlocutionary effect both on his addressee and on the readers of the incident as reported in the online versions of the New York Times and Die Zeit. It shows the value of focusing on perlocution for the study of political discourse in these global times. It also shows what pedagogical purchase can be gained by discussing perlocutionary acts and effects in communicative language teaching, rather than focusing exclusively on illocutionary acts.
Highlights
In How to do things with words, John Austin (1962) distinguished perlocutionary acts from locutionary and illocutionary acts in the performance of utterances
I had hypothesised that the two newspaper articles and the responses given by their readers would construct the reality of the event according to the affordances of the two languages and the pragmatic and cultural expectations of their readers
6.5 Historical Context If we look at the historical context, we can see that the timing of the two articles is different for the two readerships: the American article was published at a time of increasing turmoil in the White House and growing impatience with a President who appeared to be intent on destroying the very democratic institutions that had brought him to power; the German article appeared at a time when Europeans were worried about the rise of populism in Europe, and were engulfed in the Brexit controversy following the UK’s decision in March 2017 to withdraw from the European Union
Summary
In How to do things with words, John Austin (1962) distinguished perlocutionary acts from locutionary and illocutionary acts in the performance of utterances. While an indirect request in the form of a question (for instance: will you be able to let Flynn go?) would have been a more transparent strategy involving the hearer (see Weizman, 1989), Trump’s series of opaque illocutionary and locutionary acts, combined with a grounder, contribute to a high degree of ambiguity in his speech This interpretation is confirmed by considering the circumstances in which the speech act was performed: Trump’s prior request for loyalty from James Comey, his dismissal of any potential witnesses to the conversation, the fact that this is the President speaking etc. As one respondent wrote: “The largest number of responses I’ve ever seen to an article in the NYT on line” They are primarily concerned with the nature of Trump’s speech act, and secondarily with the credibility of the New York Times and its source, the Comey memo. E4) MY-NAME-IS-NOT-SUSAN: “I hope you can let this go” represents a wish; it is not an ORDER, it is not a DEMAND, it is not even a piece of advice, it is only a WISH
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
