Conventionalized illocutionary force: corpus analysis meets formalization

1. Conventionalized illocutionary force: corpus analysis meets formalization Ann Copestake and Marina Terkourafi Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge

2. Overview • conventionalized illocutionary force • corpus data • formalization of conventional formulae • direct and indirect conventional offers • conclusion

3. Conventional speech act formulae (1) It’s cold in here. (2) Could you close the window? May be interpreted similarly (in context) but (2) is conventional in a way (1) is not. (3) * It’s cold in here, please. (4) Could you close the window, please? Conventional formulae frequent (varying according to context), may be lexicalized. But `idiom theory’ fails to account for dual responses.

4. Conventional speech act formulae as interpretive shortcuts • conventional formulae allow hearers a shortcut to an interpretation they could have obtain by full inference (Morgan 1978) • conventional formulae are a pre-packaged way for speakers to achieve an effect • our account: • conventional illocutionary force represented separately from the compositional semantics • conventional illocutionary force adds to the compositional semantics, thus licensing dual responses • to give this account some force: • work with real formulae verified by corpus analysis • attempt a precise formalization of conventional formulae

5. Conventional speech act formulae in Cypriot Greek (Terkourafi 2001) • Corpus of 2,000+ recorded spontaneous exchanges • Offers & requests identified depending on: • addressee’s uptake • desirability of act predicated • Full contexts broken down to ‘minimal’ contexts (age, gender, socioeconomic status, etc) • Analyzed linguistic realization of offers and requests in different ‘minimal’ contexts

6. Conventional speech act formulae in Cypriot Greek: findings • Different formulae preferred in different ‘minimal’ contexts • Types of formulae • Lexeme-based • inflected verb forms rendered with a particular accent and intonation • Construction-based • e.g. imperative, 1sg subjunctive, 2sg subjunctive • Criteria for formulae • frequency in a ‘minimal’ context • evidence of lexicalization • fixed word order • phonological reduction • characteristic intonation contour • please-insertion in requests (Greek parakalo / ligho)

7. The ‘want’ formulae (Gr. thelo): thelisNP/VP? (= do-you-want NP/VP?) • [In a shoe-shop; Speaker: female, aged 18-30, working-class; Addressee: female, aged 18-30, middle class; Relationship: acquaintances] ’lis kafe? (.) indalos in’ o kafes su? ‘Do you want coffee? How is your coffee?’ [In a shoe-shop; Speaker: female, aged 31-50, working-class; Addressee: female, aged 31-50, working class; Relationship: salesperson to new customer] thelis na valumen kanena pataki mesa? ‘Do you want us to put an insole in?’ • illocutionary force: offer • context: wide range of informal contexts (home & work) • frequency • most frequent function of thelis NP/VP? (103/112 occurrences) • most frequent verb form for offers in each of many informal contexts • lexicalization: • word order: sentence initial (90%+) • phonological reduction:thes, ’lis

8. Formalization in HPSG • HPSG is a monostratal framework: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics and (conventionalized) pragmatics in a single sign • description of formulae requires all these levels • HPSG signs may be lexical, inflected or phrasal constructions • formulae may be lexical or constructions (not completely straightforward formally but details not important here)

9. Speech act formulae in HPSG • Formulae treated as analogous to entries for lexical items (which include multiword expressions) • each formula is a sign, a conventional association between • PHON: including intonation as indicator of function • SYNSEM: syntax, semantics, morphology • CTXT • C-ILLOC: conventionalized illocutionary force (i.e., the shortcut) • BACKGROUND: situational info from ‘minimal’ contexts • all formulae are listed

10. The C-ILLOC feature in CTXT • C–ILLOC only instantiated in formulae thelis na valumen kanena pataki mesa? Do you want us to put an insole in? • sign for utterance contains (schematically where S is SPEAKER, H is HEARER): SYNSEM:CONTENT: int(thelo(H, [1] = put-insole-in(S))) C-ILLOC: OFFER(S,H, [1] ) • Some utterances will have formulaic and non-formulaic analyses • C-ILLOC and compositional semantics - three possibilities: • conventionalized illocutionary force, C-ILLOC, instantiated along with compositional semantics (as above, this talk) • no C-ILLOC, speaker intentions inferred by the hearer from compositional semantics • C-ILLOC is instantiated, no (useful) compositional semantics, e.g. greetings like Hello!

11. Dual uptake (Clark 1979) • [At a pharmacy; Speaker A: female, aged 18-30, working class; Speaker B: female, aged over 51, middle class; Relationship: new customer to salesperson] • A:na mu kopsete apodhiksin?(=‘Can you give me a receipt?’) • B:ne ((issues receipt)) (=‘Yes.’ ((issues receipt)) direct/literal indirect • Asymmetry between two parts • ordering: literal first • different interactional consequences if only one is provided: • no reply to literal meaning > lack of politeness • no reply to indirect meaning > uncooperativeness • Keeping compositional semantics and illocutionary force may enable us to capture this basic asymmetry.

12. Formalization of speech acts Formal definition of REQUEST(S,H,ACT) (where S=Speaker, H=Hearer and ACT=some action) by Perrault & Allen 1980 • Constraint: H is the agent of ACT • Precondition: WANT(S,ACT(H)) • Body: BELIEVE(H,WANT(S,ACT(H))) • Effect: WANT(H,ACT(H)) • Planning model: S decides on actions based on goals • We are not adopting the full Perrault and Allen model, but formalization of what OFFER and REQUEST mean gives more precision to our account

13. Formalizing OFFER • our account: OFFER(S,H,ACT(S)) • connection with part of compositional semantics (which part depends on formula) • OFFER(S,H,[index into content]) SYNSEM:CONTENT: int(thelo(H, [1] = put-insole-in(s))) C-ILLOC: OFFER(SPEAKER,HEARER, [1] ) • BUT: ’lis kafe?(Do you want coffee?) thelis na scepastis?(Do you want to cover up?)

14. offers and OFFERs • uptake criterion primary for corpus annotation as offer vs request (beneficiary may not distinguish in collaborative situation, e.g., buying/selling event) • but for C-ILLOC, OFFER is distinguished from REQUEST by speaker agency (because it concerns the speaker’s plan) • examples from corpus which are offers according to the uptake criterion may not contain explicit ACT(S) • hypothesis: all offers involve explicit or implicit ACT(S) lis kafe?S offers to provide H with coffee thelis na scepastis? S offers H some action by S which will allow H to cover up (fetching a blanket)

15. Logical metonymy (Pustejovsky) • Kim enjoyed the book • enjoy’ takes an event • coercion to: enjoy’(Kim,e) & P(e,Kim,x) & book’(x) Kim enjoyed doing something with the book By default, nature of enjoyed event corresponds to purpose of entity: enjoy’(Kim,e) & read’(e,Kim,x) & book’(x) Kim enjoyed reading the book • comparebegin, finish, temporal prepositions etc After three martinis, Kim felt much happier • corpus frequencies suggest conventionalization, verb not generally specified with enjoy (Briscoe et al ,1990)

16. Metonymy and conventionalized illocutionary force • OFFER takes event with SPEAKER agent • contextual coercion with NP • ‘lis kafe? SYNSEM:CONTENT: int(thelo(H, [1] = coffee)) C-ILLOC: OFFER(SPEAKER,HEARER, P(S,H, [1] )) most examples ofthelis NPare food/drink, so P=provide (cf enjoy) • contextual coercion with VP with HEARER agent • thelis na scepastis? (=‘Do you want to cover up?’) SYNSEM:CONTENT: int(thelo(H, [1] = cover_up(H))) C-ILLOC: OFFER(S,H,P) & P=ACT(S) & PRECONDITION(P,[1])

17. Formulae and inference • Formulae as shortcuts, relating part of compositional semantics to illocutionary force. • May require constrained inference to make precise link. • Shares many characteristics with logical metonymy (also bridging etc), so normal feature of language interpretation. • Corpus annotation based on what happened, illocutionary force in C-ILLOC based on speaker plan, since speaker is choosing formula on basis of intentions. • But not following Perrault et al account of interpretation of indirect requests as querying preconditions. Formulae limit need for H to reason about S’s intentions.

18. Conclusions • Formalization of Morgan’s shortcut idea via conventionalized illocutionary force. • HPSG account allows all conventional aspects of sign to be integrated. • Linking between compositional semantics and C-ILLOC, not replacing compositional semantics (so, dual uptake possible). • Specifying meaning of REQUEST, OFFER: hypothesis that some examples involve conventionalized metonymic inference (cf logical metonymy).

19. Not discussed / in progress • Treatment of BACKGROUND: effects of context on formula use. • Ambiguity: formulaic/non-formulaic interpretations. • Examples with no C-ILLOC (no shortcut) and examples with no compositional semantics. • Detailed account of dual uptake. • Cross linguistic aspects.