Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
SEM141 - Speech Acts - An Overview
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 сер 2024
- This E-Lecture is the first part of the VLC introduction to pragmatics. It discusses the central differences between meaning and use and examines the use of utterances with special emphasis on speech act theory.
I do love this guy! I'm in a small investigation at my university, and, well, my play in it contains all these basic concepts to Pragmatics. Furthermore, I'm glad that my mother talked me into studying English, otherwise I wouldn't understand these videos. So, from Lima, Peru, Thank you for making these explanations!
La policía del pensamiento le recomendaría citar amigo ( :
Un saludo desde México
The perlocutionary act denotes the intended effect that the speaker wants to achieve with the illocutionary act. In the case of the example used in this E-Lecture ("Don't do that!"), the warning (illocutionary act) may be intended to "prevent the young child from an electric shock". It is important to note that the intended effect is always special to the respective situation.
JH
Thank you so much, Teacher!!! You helped me to understand what I was reading for a week. I'm glad I found you!!!
Thank you Sir for making the whole uninteresting thing easier and fun.😊
Thank you so much lots of love from Turkey by your fellow colleague
Thank you, it is a well-illustrated lecture about the theory of speech act.
thank you so much sir your presentation has just enlightened my brain after a struggle with this theory. such a great help
Marvellous! I finally understand the SA theory in a simple way thanks
Incredible! Great video! Thank you so much for taking the time to make it!
You've got to read The User Illusion by Tor Norretranders, you'll love it.
A wonderful lecture by a wonderful lecturer , everything was clear, thank you so much and go on presenting such lectures especially on pragmatic theories
A small observation , minute 6 .41 what is it , not to perform ? It is the action of touching, etc. the socket , it is not the socket it self ,once the socket does not involve any act or consequence by it self
Great that this type of videos are on line
Your presentation is really enlightening. Thanks for the effort put into this. I'm grateful!
Thank you for making the Speech Act Theory so easy to follow. I couldn't understand it very well before watching this video.
Fantastic and Clear explanation! Good work!
This YT channel is incredible!
I'm a foreign language student and I'm really planning to study a master of linguistics in some future, and this channel motivates me to do it! Your explanations are perfectly clear! I've watched your videos since 2 years ago when I studied a course of general linguistics, keep it going! Congrats!
Thank you for your hard working but there is one thing you should take in consideration next time your doing a great video like this ,
Please don’t talk like a book or read from a book, we can read a book at home. The reason why we watch lectures on UA-cam is to get clear insights about theories mentioned in books and watching your videos don’t make it easier but it makes it harder.
Love and respect ✊
The 'I promise I ll come to your party' with the finger up is hysterical 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Thank you very much for an excellent lecture. I will be using your lectures as a source of reference during my degree an glad i stumbled acros
s such excellent tutorials. Thank you
I love how you simplify these terms in 14 minutes. Heheheh glad I watched the video.
The term "promise" suggests that the person who is invited to the party would have less interest in his/her joining the party than the person who invited him/her, because the act of joining the party would be at the expense of the invited person, which, with parties, is usually not the case.
Under certain conditions the utterance could be correct, for example, if the invited person is much more popular than the inviting person.
Nice summary. You can hear Austin's voice online in the video "J.L. Austin speaks." He talks about how true/false is really a false dichotomy.
amazingly simplified ! thank you sir
I'll answer your question in the Questions of the Month Video "February 2013".
JH
Thank you for your lectures
Well-done. Everything so clearly exemplified.
great explanation !
This was really helpful. Thank you very much
That's pretty clear. Thanks for this video.
Thank you, from Laos.
Doing studying Linguistic. Its help a lot.
Very good explanation. I would like to find more about speech theory act related to the notions of face (Goffman) and relational work (Locher and Watts.)
really good and explicite presentation.thx
love u and ur way of explinations, from Iraq
wonderful session
thanks for the information
Honestly, I do not know whether Chomsky dismisses Searle's approach to speeach acts. But certainly, as far as I know, pragmatics has not been a major goal of Chomsky's research.
JH
thank you it's very helpful 😇😇
Thank you very much, Sir.
Thanks a lot for your assistance and your support, sir
Thank you so much! I had trouble understanding it before, but this video really helped!
Very clear and Thanks a lot
What is the general view in the linguistic community about the Searle vs. Derrida debate (or non-debate) about speech acts that happened in the early 70s?
Thanks a million,Sir 🙏🌹
just amazing
Excellently explained.! Thank you.!
Einfach super, vielen Dank! :)
very good,
VERY NICE
I guess that will depend on the power relationship between you and that person. Not the actual one, but the power relationship that each speaker BELIEVES he has with the other one. The observer must know what each of them thinks his position of power is before attempting to name the many potential meanings.
This was amazing!
Thank you more
thanks
Well done and good lecture.
Thank you so much
thank you!
Since you brought him up, why does Chomsky dismiss Searl? Would he likewise dismiss pragmatics as making no substantive contribution to linguistics?
thanks for the insight! but what is speech act now helpful for? what problems does it solve in meaning?
good
Thank u so much. it really helped me to understand a lot.
I like the explanation because it's easy to understand. but could you please explain perlocutionary acts more? I don't really understand that
and if not is it really legitimate to analyze language or arguments via logic? Thanks!
How about Rogatives?
Thank you so much!!!
you saved my day
is it possible to get full meaning of a sentence or word without pragmatics? Without context?
Jurgen, in der Tat kannst du to my party coming. :)
Thank you sir
I have a problem with the locution,prellocution and illocution please help!
if i watched and subs'ed you, i would not repeat my semantic class in my last year of college.
thank you
Good evening my research topic is about 'Speech Act theory in Teaching student's can you help me please with any new idea?
Are all utterances speech acts?
May I ask what software is being used in this lecture?
I still don't know the difference of Directive and Declaration...
watch your a's!
Thank you so much