Ostensible speech acts (OSAs) have been defined as possessing pretense, mutual recognition, collusion, ambivalence, and an off-record purpose. These researchers also noted that several features occur more often in ostensible than sincere speech (e.g., speaker hedges, violates preparatory conditions). The authors examined the role of these defining and characteristic features in the comprehension of OSAs. Participants read conversations containing sincere, ambiguous, or ostensible speech acts, and provided ratings of “goodness,” pretense, or mutual recognition, predicted the next speech act, judged the attitude of the speaker, or indicated the reason for the speech act. Participants differentiated between ostensible, ambiguous, and sincere speech in their “goodness” ratings, they perceived the defining features in OSAs, but not in sincere speech, and the characteristic features served as cues that an utterance was ostensible. These results support Isaacs and Clark’s description of OSAs.
Aijmer, K. (1986). Discourse variation and hedging. In J. Aarts & W. Meijs (Eds.), Corpus linguistics II: New studies in the analysis and exploitation of computer corpora (Vol. 47, pp. 1-18). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
2.
Bavelas, J. B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullett, J. (1990). Truths, lies, and equivocations: The effects of conflicting goals on discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 135-161.
3.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests. Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 213-229.
4.
Bull, P. (1998). Equivocation theory and news interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 36-51.
5.
Clark, H. H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.
6.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Clemen, G. (1997). The concept of hedging: Origins, approaches, and definitions. In R. Markkanen & H. Schröder (Eds.), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 235-248). Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
8.
Coulmas, F. (1981). “Poison to your soul”: Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 69-91). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
9.
Ford, C. E. (1997). Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In A. Athanasiadou & R. Dirven (Eds.), On conditionals again (pp. 387-413). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
10.
Fraser, B. (1975). Hedged performatives. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 187-210). New York: Academic Press.
11.
Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4, 341-350.
12.
Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 259-271). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
13.
Gibbs, R.W., Jr., & Delaney, S.M. (1987). Pragmatic factors in making and understanding promises. Discourse Processes, 10, 107-126.
14.
Haiman, J. (1998). Talk is cheap: Sarcasm, alienation, and the evolution of language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
15.
Hamilton, M. A., & Mineo, P. J. (1998). A framework for understanding equivocation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 17, 3-35.
16.
Haverkate, H. (1990). A speech act analysis of irony. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 77-109.
17.
Hübler, A. (1983). Understatements and hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18.
Isaacs, E. A., & Clark, H. H. (1990). Ostensible invitations. Language in Society, 19, 493-509.
19.
Kreuz, R. J., & Graesser, A. C. (1993). The assumptions behind questions in letters to advice columnists. Text, 13, 65-89.
20.
Kreuz, R. J., Roberts, R. M., Johnson, B. K., & Bertus, E. L. (1996). Figurative language occurrence and co-occurrence in contemporary literature. In R. J. Kreuz & M. S. MacNealy (Eds.), Empirical approaches to literature and aesthetics (pp. 83-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
21.
Lakoff, G. (1973). Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 458-508.
22.
Link, K. E. (2005). Pretense in spoken and written discourse. Unpublished manuscript.
23.
Link, K. E., & Kreuz, R. J. (2005). Do men and women use figurative language differently when they talk about emotions? In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative language comprehension: Social and cultural influences (pp. 153-180). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Lysvåg, P. (1975). Verbs of hedging. In J. P. Kimball (Ed.), Syntax and semantics (Vol. 4, pp. 125-154). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
25.
Manes, J. (1983). Compliments: A mirror of cultural values. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 96-102). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
26.
Manes, J., & Wolfson, N. (1981). The compliment formula. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and pre-patterned speech (pp. 115-132). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
27.
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1990). Designing experiments and analyzing data. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
28.
Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions: Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies (pp.83-97). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
29.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Verschueren, J. (1985). What people say they do with words: Vol 14. Advances in discourse processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
32.
Walton, M. (1998). Ostensible lies and the negotiation of shared meanings. Discourse Processes, 26, 27-41.
33.
Wolfson, N., D’Amico-Reisner, L., & Huber, L. (1983). How to arrange for social commitments in American English: The invitation. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language acquisition (pp. 116-128). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
34.
Ziv, Y. (1988). Lexical hedges and non-commital terms. Acta Linguistica Hungaria, 38, 261-274.
