ABSTRACT
The book outlines a classification of utterance types that takes the feature 'assertiveness' as one of its basic criteria for categorization. Bauerle's criticism reported points to the fact that the classification in is inherently problematic if one's concern is with utterances in context, rather than isolated sentences. The book observe that the classification anchored in the common, traditional distinction between questions speech acts defined in terms of the answers the aim to elicit and statements speech acts that do not elicit answers. It adopts in which the joint public commitment slate plays a crucial role, though from the perspective of a larger model of social interaction. The book characterizes 'assertiveness' for the range of utterances formed the domain of the present investigation. It is a task for future empirical investigation to ascertain whether the specific interactive, attitudinal concept of 'assertiveness' developed for English L- is the appropriate interpretational correlate of falling phrasal intonation in other languages.
