The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is Sybil there? the structure of some American English directives
Abstract
Directives to hearers can be expressed in a variety of syntactic forms. The social distribution of such forms shows them to occur systematically, according to familiarity, rank, territorial location, difficulty of task, whether or not a duty is normally expected, whether or not non-compliance is likely. Except for some hints and questions not mentioning what is desired, directives do not require inference from a prior literal interpretation to be understood. Indeed, misunderstandings and puns imply that the interpretation of many directives is not likely to include a literal phase. On the contrary, where knowledge of obligations and prohibitions is shared, simple interpretation rules suffice, allowing prompt understanding. To interpret the affective significance of directives, one must compare the expected and realized forms, and recognize the social features that the difference implies. Deference, solidarity, coldness, sarcasm, rudeness, and qualitatively specified compliments or insults can be communicated systematically by such departures. (Pragmatics, directives, requests, politeness, conversational analysis, performatives, US English.)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grice, H. P. (1975) · Speech Acts · doi:10.1163/9789004368811_003 · Cited by 23,221
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
(2022) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(22)x0002-6 · Cited by 22,259
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350
Goffman, E. (1963) · Cited by 2,229
(1995) · Anthropology News · doi:10.1111/an.1995.36.5.2.4 · Cited by 1,782
Directions in sociolinguistics
John, J. G. (2017) · Cited by 1,649
Song, S. (2018) · Second Language Acquisition as a Mode-Switching Process · doi:10.1057/978-1-137-52436-2_4 · Cited by 1,457
(1979) · Expression and Meaning · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609213.004 · Cited by 1,393
Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse
Sachs, J. S. (1967) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03208784 · Cited by 1,164
Cited by
Cross-Cultural Pragmatic Failure
THOMAS, J. (1983) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/4.2.91 · Cited by 1,894
when talk isn't cheap: language and political economy
IRVINE, J. T. (1989) · American Ethnologist · doi:10.1525/ae.1989.16.2.02a00040 · Cited by 1,270
Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP)1
BLUM-KULKA, S., & OLSHTAIN, E. (1984) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/5.3.196 · Cited by 1,242
Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/0378-2166(87)90192-5 · Cited by 891
Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting
Curl, T. S., & Drew, P. (2008) · Research on Language and Social Interaction · doi:10.1080/08351810802028613 · Cited by 802
Metadata
- Authors
- Ervin-Tripp, S.
- Venue
- Language in Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1976-04
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 25-66
- ISSN
- 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8013
- OpenAlex
- W2022123132
- Cited by
- 768
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 76.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is Sybil there? the structure of some American English directives. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0047404500006849
- The paper
- Ervin-Tripp, S. (1976). Is Sybil there? the structure of some American English directives. Language in Society. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006849
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.