Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:08:02.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Speech Acts to Literary Genres: Toward a Factual and Fictional Discourses Typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2018

SIMON FOURNIER
SIMON FOURNIER*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Rimouski
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In recent decades, speech act theorists began analyzing discourses in order to describe the logic that governs the use and understanding of language in the context of interlocutions. This paper is in the wake of those studies. It questions the fruitfulness of the notion of speech acts in literary pragmatics, analyzes some literary genres and proposes a discourse typology containing eight generic categories that reflect the possible links between factual and fictional discourses. In doing so, it offers a response to a question raised many years ago by a literary theorist that is directed to speech act theorists.

Au cours des dernières décennies, les théoriciens des actes de discours ont amorcé l’analyse des discours afin de décrire la logique qui gouverne l’usage et la compréhension du langage en contexte d’interlocution. Cet article s’inscrit dans la foulée de ces études. Il interroge la fécondité de la notion d’actes de discours en pragmatique littéraire, analyse quelques genres littéraires et propose une typologie des discours composée de huit catégories génériques qui font état des relations logiquement possibles entre les discours factuels et fictionnels, en guise de réponse à une question qu’un théoricien littéraire a posé autrefois aux théoriciens des actes de discours.

Keywords

logic of discoursediscourse typologyspeech actsliterary genresfactual discoursesfictional discourses
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 877 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Austin, John L. 1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Combe, Dominique 1992 Les Genres littéraires. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith 1974 “Speaking of Nothing.” Philosophical Review 83 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley 1980 Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Readers Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fournier, Simon 2013 “L’Énonciation non sérieuse a-t-elle une force illocutoire? À propos de l’hypothèse performative de la fiction littéraire.” Dialogue 52 (2): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, Stacie 2012 “Fiction as a Genre.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 112 (2pt2): 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genette, Gérard 1991 Fiction et Diction. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine 2001 Les Actes de langage dans le discours, Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, Jean-Marie 1989 Qu’est-ce qu’un genre littéraire? Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969 Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975 “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse.” New Literary History 6 (2): 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1977 “Reiterating the Differences. A Reply to Derrida.” Glyph: John Hopkins Textual Studies 2: 198–208.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979 Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1992 “Conversation” and “Conversation Reconsidered,” in (On) Searle on Conversation, edited by Parret, Herman and Verschueren, Jef. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 7–29 and pp. 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1995 The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2001 “Expanding the Speech Act Taxonomy to Discourse. Reply to Vanderveken.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 55 (216)(2): 292–293.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 2002 Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R., and Vanderveken, Daniel 1985 Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sousa Melo, Candida Jaci de 2001 “Possible Directions of Fit between Mind, Language and the World,” in Essays in Speech Act Theory, edited by Vanderveken, Daniel and Kubo, Susumu. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel 1997 “La Logique illocutoire et l’Analyse du discours,” in Le Dialogique, edited by Luzzati, Daniel, Beacco, Jean-Claude, Mir-Samii, Reza, and Murat, Michel. Berne: Peter Lang, pp. 59–94.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel 1999 “La Structure logique des dialogues intelligents,” in Analyse et Simulation des conversations, edited by Moulin, Bernard, Delisle, Sylvain, and Chaib-Draa, Brahim. Lyon: L’Interdisciplinaire, pp. 62–100.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel 2001a “Illocutionary Logic and Discourse Typology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 55 (216)(2): 243–255.Google Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel 2001b “Universal Grammar and Speech Act Theory,” in Essays in Speech Act Theory, edited by Vanderveken, Daniel and Kubo, Susumu. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 25–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderveken, Daniel, and Kubo, Susumu 2001 “Introduction,” in Essays in Speech Act Theory, edited by Vanderveken, Daniel and Kubo, Susumu. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1981 Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig 1958 Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar