write a short note on speech act theory

Humanities ›
English Grammar ›

What Is The Speech Act Theory: Definition and Examples

FranksValli/Wikimedia Commons

An Introduction to Punctuation
Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
B.A., English, State University of New York

Speech act theory is a subfield of pragmatics that studies how words are used not only to present information but also to carry out actions.

The speech act theory was introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin in "How to Do Things With Words" and further developed by American philosopher John Searle. It considers the degree to which utterances are said to perform locutionary acts , illocutionary acts , and/or perlocutionary acts .

Many philosophers and linguists, such as Andreas Kemmerling , study speech act theory as a way to better understand human communication. "Part of the joy of doing speech act theory, from my strictly first-person point of view," Kemmerling wrote, "is becoming more and more remindful of how many surprisingly different things we do when we talk to each other".

Searle's Five Illocutionary Points

Philosopher John Searle is responsible for devising a system of speech act categorization.

"In the past three decades, speech act theory has become an important branch of the contemporary theory of language thanks mainly to the influence of [J.R.] Searle (1969, 1979) and [H.P.] Grice (1975) whose ideas on meaning and communication have stimulated research in philosophy and in human and cognitive sciences..."

From Searle's view, there are only five illocutionary points that speakers can achieve on propositions in an utterance, namely:

The assertive
The commissive
The directive
The declaratory
The expressive

Speakers achieve:

The assertive point when they represent how things are in the world;
The commissive point when they commit themselves to doing something;
The directive point when they make an attempt to get hearers to do something;
The declaratory point when they do things in the world at the moment of the utterance solely by virtue of saying that they do;
The expressive point when they express their attitudes about objects and facts of the world (Vanderkeven and Kubo 2002)

Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism

"Since 1970 speech act theory has influenced...the practice of literary criticism. When applied to the analysis of direct discourse by a character within a literary work, it provides a systematic...framework for identifying the unspoken presuppositions, implications, and effects of speech acts [that] competent readers and critics have always taken into account, subtly though unsystematically.

Speech act theory has also been used in a more radical way, however, as a model on which to recast the theory of literature...and especially...prose narratives. What the author of a fictional work—or else what the author's invented narrator—narrates is held to constitute a 'pretended' set of assertions, which are intended by the author, and understood by the competent reader, to be free from a speaker's ordinary commitment to the truth of what he or she asserts.

Within the frame of the fictional world that the narrative thus sets up, however, the utterances of the fictional characters—whether these are assertions or promises or marital vows—are held to be responsible to ordinary illocutionary commitments," (Abrams and Galt Harpham 2005).

Criticisms of Speech Act Theory

Although Searle's theory of speech acts has had a tremendous influence on functional aspects of pragmatics, it has also received very strong criticism.

The Function of Sentences

Some argue that Austin and Searle based their work principally on their intuitions, focusing exclusively on sentences isolated from the context where they might be used. In this sense, one of the main contradictions to Searle's suggested typology is the fact that the illocutionary force of a concrete speech act cannot take the form of a sentence as Searle considered it.

"Rather, researchers suggest that a sentence is a grammatical unit within the formal system of language, whereas the speech act involves a communicative function separate from this."

Interactional Aspects of Conversation

"In speech act theory, the hearer is seen as playing a passive role. The illocutionary force of a particular utterance is determined with regard to the linguistic form of the utterance and also introspection as to whether the necessary felicity conditions —not least in relation to the speaker's beliefs and feelings—are fulfilled. Interactional aspects are, thus, neglected.

However, [a] conversation is not just a mere chain of independent illocutionary forces—rather, speech acts are related to other speech acts with a wider discourse context. Speech act theory, in that it does not consider the function played by utterances in driving conversation is, therefore, insufficient in accounting for what actually happens in conversation," (Barron 2003).

Abrams, Meyer Howard, and Geoffrey Galt Harpham. A Glossary of Literary Terms . 8th ed., Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2005.
Austin, J.l. “How To Do Things With Words.” 1975.
Barron, Anne. Acquisition in Interlanguage Pragmatics Learning How to Do Things with Words in a Study Abroad Context . J. Benjamins Pub. Co., 2003..
Kemmerling, Andreas. “Speech Acts, Minds, and Social Reality: Discussions with John r. Searle. Expressing an Intentional State.” Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy , vol. 79, 2002, pp. 83. Kluwer Academic Publishers .
Vanderveken, Daniel, and Susumu Kubo. “Introduction.” Essays in Speech Act Theory , John Benjamins, 2001, pp. 1–21.
What Is a Rhetorical Device? Definition, List, Examples
5 Theories on the Origins of Language
Figure of Speech: Definition and Examples
What Is Composition? Definition, Types, and Examples
The Best Sites to Learn New Words Every Day
What Is a Phrase? Definition and Examples in Grammar
A List of Exclamations and Interjections in English
Definition and Examples of Context Clues
Definition and Examples of Syntax
What Are Word Blends?
Subordinating Conjunctions
Basic Grammar: What Is a Diphthong?
Linguistic Variation
Question Mark Definition and Examples
Silent Letter Words in English
How to Write a Summary (With Examples)

Learning Materials

Business Studies
Combined Science
Computer Science
Engineering
English Literature
Environmental Science
Human Geography
Macroeconomics
Microeconomics
Speech Act Theory

Speech Act Theory is a branch of pragmatics initially developed by philosophers J.L. Austin and further advanced by John Searle, focusing on how utterances not only convey information but also perform actions, such as promising or ordering. Central to this theory are three types of speech acts : locutionary (the actual act of saying something), illocutionary (the intended function behind the saying), and perlocutionary acts (the effect achieved upon the listener). Understanding Speech Act Theory enhances comprehension of language's multifaceted role in communication beyond mere sentence structure and semantics .

Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies

Cell Biology

What is the primary concept of the Speech Act Theory developed by Austin and Searle?

What are the three main components of Austin's Speech Act Theory?

How does Austin's Speech Act Theory apply to computer programming?

What is the fundamental focus of Speech Act Theory?

Which are the three main components of a speech act as per the theory?

What does a locutionary act involve?

Which category in Searle's Speech Act Theory represents a speaker committing to future actions?

What are felicity conditions in the context of Speech Act Theory?

What is a speech act?

What is a directive speech act?

Who were the key philosophers in the development of speech act theory?

Achieve better grades quicker with Premium

Geld-zurück-Garantie, wenn du durch die Prüfung fällst

Review generated flashcards

to start learning or create your own AI flashcards

Start learning or create your own AI flashcards

StudySmarter Editorial Team

Team Speech Act Theory Teachers

9 minutes reading time
Checked by StudySmarter Editorial Team
5 Paragraph Essay
Argumentative Essay
Creative Writing
Cues and Conventions
English Grammar
English Language Study
Essay Prompts
Essay Writing Skills
Global English
History of English Language
International English
Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics
Language Acquisition
Language Analysis
Language and Social Groups
Lexis and Semantics
Linguistic Terms
Listening and Speaking
Multiple Choice Questions
Research and Composition
Rhetorical Analysis Essay
Single Paragraph Essay
Sociolinguistics
Summary Text
Synthesis Essay
TESOL (English)
Academic Discourse
Academic Writing
Achievement Tests
Affective Filter
Alignment To Standards
Alternative Assessment
Analytic Scoring
Analytical Frameworks
Analytical Scoring
Argumentation Skills
Argumentative Writing
Assessing Reading
Assessing Speaking
Assessing Writing
Assessment Criteria
Assessment Ethics
Assessment Feedback
Assessment Frameworks
Assessment Innovation
Assessment Literacy
Assessment Methods
Assessment Objectives
Assessment Scales
Assessment Techniques
Assessment Tools
Audiolingual Method
Authentic Assessment
Behavioral Expectations
Benchmarking Tests
Bilingual Advantage
Bilingual Cognition
Bilingual Curriculum
Bilingual Discourse Analysis
Bilingual Education
Bilingual Education Models
Bilingual Interaction
Bilingual Language Development
Bilingual Language Processing
Bilingual Method
Bilingual Phonology
Bilingual Syntax
Bilingual Teaching Methods
Bilingualism And Intelligence
Bilingualism Impacts
Bilingualism In Education
Blended Learning
Case Study Evaluation
Citizenship Language Policies
Clarification Requests
Classroom Climate
Classroom Community
Classroom Discipline
Classroom Discourse
Classroom Diversity
Classroom Layout
Classroom Management
Classroom Routines
Classroom Rules
Code-mixing
Cognitive Communication
Cognitive Interaction
Cognitive Linguistics
Cognitive Skills In Literacy
Cognitive Strategies
Collaborative Assessment
Collaborative Dialogue
Communication Breakdown
Communication Styles
Communication Techniques
Communicative Approach
Communicative Competence
Competency-based Education
Comprehensible Input
Comprehension Skills
Computer-based Assessment
Computer-mediated Communication
Computerized Testing
Conceptual Understanding
Confirmation Checks
Connectivism
Construct Validity
Constructing Tests
Constructivist Approach
Content Integrated Learning
Content Validity
Content-based Instruction
Context Clues Understanding
Contextual Meaning
Contextualization
Contextualization Cues
Contextualized Teaching
Continuous Assessment
Contrastive Analysis
Conversational Analysis
Criterion-referenced
Criterion-referenced Tests
Critical Pedagogy
Critical Period Hypothesis
Critical Reading
Cross-cultural Adaptation
Cross-cultural Education
Cross-cultural Skills
Cross-linguistic Influence
Crosslinguistic Influence
Cultural Bias In Testing
Cultural Discourse
Cultural Empathy
Cultural Hegemony
Cultural Interpretations
Cultural Literacy
Cultural Norms
Cultural Pragmatics
Cultural Stereotyping
Curriculum Mapping
Diagnostic Assessment
Diagnostic Evaluation
Dialogic Interaction
Dialogue Analysis
Differentiated Instruction
Digital Literacy
Direct Method
Discourse Coherence
Dual Language Programs
Dynamic Assessment
Educational Assessment
Educational Language Policies
Educational Linguistics
Educational Measurement
Educational Objectives
Educational Philosophies
Educational Psychology
Educational Theory
Effective Communication
Elicitation
Elicitation Technique
Error Correction
Esl Classroom Management
Esl Teaching Techniques
Ethnolinguistics
Evaluation Models
Evaluation Rubrics
Evaluative Feedback
Evidence-based Writing
Exploratory Talk
Face-to-face Interaction
Feedback Strategies
Fluency Development
Fluency Vs Accuracy
Form-focused Instruction
Formative Assessment
Functional Approach
Functional Grammar
Functional Multilingualism
Gesture Studies
Global Communication
Grading Criteria
Grading Practices
Grammar Analysis
Grammar And Syntax
Grammar Instruction
Grammar Proficiency
Heritage Speakers
Holistic Scoring
Immersion Method
Inclusive Practices
Input Hypothesis
Inquiry-based Learning
Interaction Constraints
Interaction Goals
Interaction Hypothesis
Interaction Outcome
Interaction Skills
Interaction Techniques
Interactional Context
Interactional Feedback
Interactional Input
Interactional Sociolinguistics
Interactional Strategies
Intercultural Awareness
Intercultural Competence
Intercultural Dialogue
Intercultural Ethics
Intercultural Learning
Intercultural Mediation
Intercultural Miscommunication
Intercultural Negotiation
Intercultural Pragmatics
Intercultural Relationships
Intercultural Rhetoric
Intercultural Sensitivity
Interlanguage
Interlanguage Development
Interpersonal Communication
Interpretation Skills
Interpretive Assessment
Item Analysis
Journalistic Literacy
Language Acquisition Policy
Language Acquisition Theories
Language Adaptation
Language And Cognition
Language And Inequality
Language And Media
Language And Migration
Language And Nationalism
Language And Society
Language Anxiety
Language Assessment
Language Assimilation
Language Attrition
Language Attrition And Retention
Language Change
Language Code-switching
Language Commodification
Language Correction
Language Curriculum Design
Language Death
Language Development
Language Discrimination
Language Diversity
Language Documentation
Language Dominance
Language Ecology
Language Endangerment
Language Equity
Language Evolution
Language Exposure
Language For Social Justice
Language Fossilization
Language Globalization
Language Hegemony
Language Hierarchy
Language Identity
Language Ideologies
Language Ideology Critique
Language Ideology Shift
Language Immersion
Language Immersion Strategies
Language Input
Language Instruction
Language Integration
Language Interaction
Language Intervention
Language Learning Styles
Language Maintenance
Language Minorities
Language Modification
Language Motivation
Language Negotiation
Language Objectives
Language Output
Language Pedagogy
Language Planning
Language Policy
Language Politeness
Language Political Correctness
Language Practice
Language Production
Language Proficiency
Language Reform Movements
Language Retention
Language Revitalization
Language Scaffolding
Language Shift
Language Skills
Language Skills Integration
Language Socialization
Language Standardization
Language Teaching
Language Teaching Materials
Language Teaching Methodology
Language Testing
Language Transfer
Language Typology
Language Universals
Language Variation
Learner Autonomy
Learner Motivation
Learning Environment
Learning Pragmatics
Lexical Approach
Lexical Chunks
Lexical Development
Linguistic Interaction
Linguistic Market
Linguistic Nationalism
Linguistic Relativity
Linguistic Rights
Listening Comprehension
Listening Discrimination
Listening Strategies
Literacy Skills
Literature Analysis
Mastery Learning
Media Literacy
Metacognitive Skills
Metacognitive Strategies
Metalinguistic Awareness
Minority Language Rights
Monitor Hypothesis
Morphology Studies
Multilingual Interaction
Multilingual Policies
Multilingualism
Multimodal Communication
Multimodal Learning
Multimodal Literacy
Narrative Approach
Native Speaker Interaction
Nativism In Language
Natural Approach
Needs Analysis
Negotiation Of Meaning
Non-native Speaker Interaction
Norm-referenced
Norm-referenced Tests
Norming Sessions
Note-taking Skills
Noticing Hypothesis
Official Language
Oral Proficiency
Orthographic Development
Output Hypothesis
Paralinguistic Features
Participation Strategies
Participatory Approach
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical Grammar
Peer Assessment
Peer Correction
Peer Feedback
Peer Interaction
Peer Teaching
Phonetic Transcription
Phonetics Instruction
Phonological Analysis
Phonological Awareness
Pidgin And Creole Languages
Policy And Ideologies
Portfolio Assessment
Positive Reinforcement
Postcolonial Linguistics
Pragmatic Awareness
Pragmatic Competence
Pragmatic Skills
Pragmatics Exploration
Pragmatics In Language Teaching
Problem-based Learning
Process Evaluation
Proficiency Testing
Proficiency Tests
Project-based Learning
Pronunciation Features
Pronunciation Practice
Pronunciation Teaching
Quantitative Assessment
Quantitative Research In Bilingualism
Questioning Techniques
Reading Comprehension
Reading Strategies
Reflective Journals
Repair Strategies
Response Analysis
Rubric Design
Scaffolding Strategies
Scaffolding Techniques
Scoping Assessment
Score Interpretation
Second Language Acquisition
Second Language Ideology
Self-assessment
Self-regulated Learning
Self-regulation Strategies
Semantics In Teaching
Semantics-pragmatics Interface
Sentence Structure
Skill Integration
Socio-cultural Theory
Sociocultural Theory
Sociolinguistic Competence
Sociolinguistic Context
Sociophonetics
Speaking Fluency
Speaking Strategies
Speech Communication
Spoken Language Analysis
Standardized Testing
Standardized Tests
Statistical Moderation
Storytelling Skills
Student Engagement
Student Surveys
Student-centered Learning
Suggestopedia
Summative Assessment
Syntactic Competence
Syntax And Semantics
Syntax Construction
Syntax Development
Syntax Teaching
Syntax Theory
Task-based Assessment
Task-based Interaction
Task-based Learning
Teacher Expectations
Teacher Feedback
Teacher Language Beliefs
Teacher Presence
Teacher Reflection
Teacher-student Interaction
Teacher-student Rapport
Teaching Methodology
Tesol Assessment
Test Anxiety
Test Item Writing
Test Reliability
Test Validation
Test Validity
Text Analysis
Textual Coherence
Transcultural Communication
Transfer Of Learning
Transformative Learning
Translation Studies
Transliteracy
Triangulation Of Data
Turn-taking Mechanisms
Verbal Communication Styles
Vocabulary Acquisition
Vocabulary Building
Washback Effect
Writing Conventions
Writing Process
Writing Proficiency
Writing Skills
Written Proficiency
Textual Analysis

Jump to a key chapter

Speech Act Theory Definition

Speech Act Theory is an important concept in linguistics and philosophy of language, focusing on the role of language in communication. It describes how words are not merely used to convey information but also to perform certain actions.

Understanding Speech Act Theory

Developed by philosophers such as John L. Austin and later John Searle , Speech Act Theory suggests that when you speak, you are not just stating facts but may also be performing actions. These actions can include promising, ordering, greeting, warning, inviting and congratulating. The theory breaks down these acts into three main components:

Locutionary Act : The actual utterance and its apparent meaning.
Illocutionary Act : The intended meaning behind the utterance, or the speaker’s intention.
Perlocutionary Act : The effect the utterance has on the listener.

A speech act is an utterance defined by a speaker's intention as well as its effect on the listener. Speech acts include various actions performed through language, such as apologizing, requesting, and informing.

Consider the phrase 'I apologize for being late.' Here, the locutionary act is merely saying the words. The illocutionary act is the act of apologizing, and the perlocutionary act might lead the listener to feel forgiveness or understanding.

Speech Act Theory opens the door to understanding pragmatics in language, which is how context influences the interpretation of meaning. For example, when you say 'It's cold in here,' depending on the context, you might be hinting that someone should close the window. Thus, the illocutionary force goes beyond mere words, impacting interpretation and communication:

Language goes beyond grammar and vocabulary; context and intention are crucial.
This understanding aids in programming computers to understand human languages better, as it offers insights into the nuances of human communication.

Austin Speech Act Theory

The Austin Speech Act Theory , formulated by the philosopher John L. Austin , explores how language functions not only to convey information but also to perform actions.

Components of Speech Acts

The theory distinguishes between different types of speech acts, which you can understand through three main components:

Locutionary Act : This involves the formulation of the utterance itself, including its phonetic and grammatical aspects .
Illocutionary Act : This refers to the intention behind the utterance, such as asking, commanding, or warning.
Perlocutionary Act : This is concerned with the effect the utterance has on the listener, like persuading or scaring them.

A speech act is any action carried out through speaking, governed by the speaker's intention and the effect on the listener.

Consider this example: 'Can you pass the salt?' Here, the locutionary act is the question, the illocutionary act is the request to pass the salt, and the perlocutionary act is the listener handing over the salt.

Remember, not all communication needs to be spoken; gestures and body language can complement or substitute verbal speech acts.

The Austin Speech Act Theory has far-reaching implications beyond basic communication. It plays a significant role in:

Legal Language : Understanding the intent behind legal clauses and witness testimonies.
Computer Programming : Enhancing AI and natural language processing for better human-computer interaction.

For instance, when software recognizes 'Can you tell me the time?' as a request action rather than a mere question, it provides a more intuitive user experience.

Austin and Searle Speech Act Theory

The Speech Act Theory , developed by philosophers John L. Austin and later expanded by John Searle , revolves around the idea that language doesn't just convey information but also performs various actions.

Searle's Expansions on Austin's Theory

John Searle expanded on Austin's work by categorizing speech acts further and examining the rules that govern them. Understanding these categories and associated rules helps in identifying how speech acts achieve their purpose in communication.

Assertive : The speaker asserts a fact or belief. Example: 'It is raining.'
Directive : The speaker tries to get the listener to do something. Example: 'Please open the window.'
Commissive : The speaker commits to a future action. Example: 'I promise to call you tomorrow.'
Expressive : The speaker expresses feelings or emotions. Example: 'I am sorry for your loss.'
Declarative : The speaker's utterance brings a change to the external situation. Example: 'I now pronounce you husband and wife.'

A Speech Act is defined by an utterance that performs an action as communicated through the intention of the speaker and its effect on the listener.

An example to illustrate: Saying 'Watch out!' can serve as a warning and cause the listener to be more cautious, demonstrating a directive speech act.

While Austin's theory establishes the foundational framework for speech acts, Searle's contribution enriches it by focusing on the principles governing these acts. These principles often outline how speech must be performed under certain conditions to be successful, known as the felicity conditions . For example, for a promise to be binding:

The speaker must intend to perform the act.
The listener must prefer that the act be done.
The act must not be a usual duty of the speaker.

This differentiation helps in refining not only philosophical discussions but also practical applications such as in artificial intelligence, where understanding the nuances of human intent is crucial for better interaction.

Remember, understanding speech acts requires considering not just the words, but the context and intention behind them.

Meaning of Speech Acts

Speech acts are an essential concept in understanding how language functions. They emphasize the idea that speaking is not just about relaying information but also about executing certain actions through words.

Speech Acts Explained

Developed through the works of philosophers such as John L. Austin and John Searle , speech acts allow you to explore how language serves various functions in communication. When you say something, you are often doing something with your words.

An assertive speech act is used to declare something true or false, like 'The earth circles the sun.'
In a directive speech act, you aim to get the listener to do something, such as 'Please, close the door.'
A commissive speech act binds you to future action, for example, 'I will finish my report by tomorrow.'
Expressive speech acts convey your emotional state. Saying, 'I'm thrilled about the concert!' is an expressive act.
Declarative speech acts bring about a change in the world through their utterance, like 'I name this ship The Voyager.'

A speech act is an expressive function of language, performed by the speaker with a specific intention and impacting the listener or situation.

Consider how tone, context, and body language can influence the effectiveness of a speech act.

Understanding speech acts is crucial for applications in technology, such as improving human-computer interaction. When machines can interpret speech acts, they can respond more naturally to commands and conversations. Advanced natural language processing seeks to detect not only the literal meaning but also the illocutionary force behind words to enhance AI communication systems.

Examples of Speech Acts

Examples bring clarity to the abstract concept of speech acts by demonstrating how words perform actions in everyday scenarios.

When you say, 'I apologize for the misunderstanding,' you are performing an act of apology , seeking forgiveness.
Asking, 'Could you pass the salt?' exemplifies a request act intended to prompt action from another person.
Declaring, 'I hereby resign from my position,' acts as a resignation , altering your employment status.

An illustrative case : The phrase 'I vow to take care of you' exemplifies a commissive speech act, committing the speaker to future actions in a relationship context.

Speech Act Theory - Key takeaways

Speech Act Theory Definition : A concept in linguistics and philosophy of language where words are used to perform actions, not just convey information.
Austin and Searle Speech Act Theory : Developed by philosophers John L. Austin and later expanded by John Searle, focusing on the performative nature of language.
Components of Speech Acts : Consists of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts; each represents different aspects of the speaker's intention and the utterance's effect.
Meaning of Speech Acts : The intention and effect of an utterance define a speech act, which can be categorically assertive, directive, commissive, expressive, or declarative.
Examples of Speech Acts : 'I apologize for being late' is an apology, while 'Can you pass the salt?' is a request, showing how words function as actions.
Speech Acts Explained : Highlights the practical use and implications in fields such as legal language and AI by analyzing conversational contexts and intentions.

Flashcards in Speech Act Theory 12

Language only facilitates non-verbal communication.

Phonetic, Semantic, Pragmatic Acts

Improves software debugging techniques

It is concerned with how languages evolve over time.

Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary acts.

Intention behind the utterance

Learn faster with the 12 flashcards about Speech Act Theory

Already have an account? Log in

Frequently Asked Questions about Speech Act Theory

Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards.

What are the three main components of Austin's Speech Act Theory?

How does Austin's Speech Act Theory apply to computer programming?

That was a fantastic start!

You can do better, sign up to create your own flashcards.

Access over 700 million learning materials

Study more efficiently with flashcards

Get better grades with AI

Already have an account? Log in

Keep learning, you are doing great.

Discover learning materials with the free StudySmarter app

About StudySmarter

StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.

Team English Teachers

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Create a free account to save this explanation..

Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!

By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place

Flashcards & Quizzes
AI Study Assistant
Study Planner
Smart Note-Taking

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

Media Studies
Communication
Linguistics

Speech Act Theory | How Words Shape Meaning & Interactions

June 27, 2023 March 31, 2024

In the captivating world of media and communications, one theory that holds immense importance is the Speech Act Theory. Developed by philosophers J.L. Austin and John Searle, this theory helps us comprehend how our words possess the power to shape meaning. Also, how it influences our interactions with others. Let’s delve into this theory and explore its key concepts to unlock the secrets of effective communication.

The Power of Words

Words are not merely sounds or symbols; they carry profound power. Thus, they possess the ability to convey thoughts, express emotions, and influence others. Speech Act Theory enables us to comprehend that when we speak, we are not solely stating facts, but also performing actions through our words.

Understanding the power of words allows us to recognise the impact our speech has on others. It helps us become conscious of the choices we make in our language use. Thus, making us aware of the potential consequences they may have. By harnessing the power of words, we can express ourselves effectively and create meaningful connections with those around us.

Locution, Illocution & Perlocution

Speech acts can be understood through three levels: locution, illocution, and perlocution. Locution refers to the actual words and phrases we use. Illocution focuses on the intentions behind our words, such as making a request or giving an order. Perlocution refers to the impact our words have on others, like persuading or motivating them to take action.

By recognising these levels of speech acts, we gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of communication. We become aware that our words carry not only literal meanings but also implied intentions. We then need to consider the potential effects on the receiver. This awareness enables us to be more mindful of our speech and adapt it according to our communicative goals.

Types of Speech Acts

Speech Act Theory categorises speech acts into three main types: assertive, directive, and expressive. Assertive speech acts aim to convey information, such as stating facts or making claims. Directive speech acts involve issuing commands or requests. Expressive speech acts express emotions, attitudes, or feelings.

Understanding the different types of speech acts helps us navigate various communicative situations effectively. We learn to recognise when we need to provide information, give instructions, or express ourselves emotionally. This knowledge allows us to choose the appropriate speech acts to achieve our communication goals. Therefore, allowing us to convey our intended meanings accurately.

Felicity Conditions

For a speech act to be successful, certain conditions known as felicity conditions must be met. These conditions ensure that the act is performed appropriately and is understood by the intended audience. Felicity conditions may include factors such as sincerity, relevance, and the social context in which the speech act takes place. Understanding and adhering to these conditions contribute to effective communication.

Recognising felicity conditions helps us gauge the appropriateness and effectiveness of our speech acts. Therefore, we become more conscious of the importance of sincerity in our words. Furthermore, the relevance of our statements to the context, and finally the impact of social norms on communication. By considering these conditions, we enhance our ability to convey our messages successfully and build stronger connections with others.

Speech Act Theory & Performativity

Speech Act Theory emphasises the concept of performativity. This suggests that by uttering specific words, we bring about a change in the world. For example, saying “I now pronounce you husband and wife” during a wedding ceremony establishes a new marital status for the couple. Our words have the power to create realities and shape social structures. This aspect of speech acts highlights their transformative nature.

Understanding performativity allows us to appreciate the significant influence of our words on social and cultural contexts. As a result, we become aware of the role our speech plays in shaping perceptions, reinforcing norms, and constructing shared meanings. Also, by harnessing the power of performativity, we can contribute to positive social change and inspire others through our words.

Contextual Factors of Speech Act Theory

Context plays a vital role in comprehending speech acts. The same words can have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. For instance, cultural norms, social relationships, and shared knowledge influence the interpretation of speech acts. Being aware of these contextual factors is essential for effective communication. Therefore, understanding the situational context helps to avoid miscommunication and ensures that the intended meaning is conveyed.

Considering contextual factors enhances our ability to adapt our communication to specific situations. We become sensitive to cultural nuances and adapt our language to different social relationships. Also, it allows us to utilise shared knowledge to convey our ideas effectively. By understanding context, we navigate diverse communication settings with ease and promote mutual understanding.

Pragmatics & Politeness

Speech Act Theory is closely intertwined with Pragmatics , the study of how language is used in real-life situations. Politeness is a significant aspect of pragmatics. Sociolinguists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson argue that Politeness Strategies , such as using indirect language or employing polite expressions, help maintain social harmony and prevent potential conflicts. Being aware of cultural and social norms of politeness aids in building positive interpersonal relationships.

Understanding pragmatics and politeness allows us to engage in effective and harmonious communication. Thus, we learn to adapt our speech to different social contexts, respect cultural norms, and demonstrate consideration for others. Therefore, by employing politeness strategies, we cultivate empathy, show respect, and foster healthy relationships with those around us.

Criticisms of Speech Act Theory

Despite its significant contributions to understanding communication, Speech Act Theory is not without its criticisms. Some scholars argue that the theory places excessive focus on the speaker’s intentions. Therefore, it neglects the role of the listener in interpreting speech acts. They suggest that meaning is a collaborative effort between the speaker and the listener. This is influenced by shared knowledge and social context.

Others criticise Speech Act Theory for its limited scope in accounting for non-verbal communication. Also, the impact of non-linguistic elements such as body language and facial expressions. They argue that meaning is not solely derived from words but also from non-verbal cues that accompany speech acts.

Additionally, critics point out that Speech Act Theory tends to overlook the role of power dynamics and social inequalities in communication. They argue that the ability to perform certain speech acts may be constrained by societal structures. Thus, not all individuals have equal opportunities to exercise their speech acts freely.

Speech Act Theory offers us a valuable framework for comprehending the power of words and the intricacies of human communication. By recognising the various levels of speech acts, the significance of felicity conditions, the transformative nature of performativity, the impact of context, and the importance of pragmatics and politeness, we can become more effective communicators. However, it is important to acknowledge the criticisms of the theory and consider alternative perspectives. This helps us to then develop a more comprehensive understanding of communication.

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words . Oxford University Press.

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language . Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage . Cambridge University Press.

Literary Theory and Criticism

Home › Literary Terms and Techniques › Speech Act Theory

Speech Act Theory

By NASRULLAH MAMBROL on October 11, 2020 • ( 0 )

Speech act theory accounts for an act that a speaker performs when pronouncing an utterance, which thus serves a function in communication. Since speech acts are the tools that allow us to interact in real-life situations, uttering a speech act requires knowledge not only of the language but also of its appropriate use within a given culture.

Speech act theory was first developed by J. L. Austin whose seminal Oxford Lectures in 1952–4 marked an important development in the philosophy of language and linguistics. Austin’s proposal can be viewed as a reaction to the extreme claims of logical positivists, who argued that the meaning of a sentence is reducible to its verifiability, that is to an analysis which verifies if utterances are true or false. Austin contended that most of our utterances do more than simply making statements: questions and orders are not used to state something, and many declarative sentences do not lend themselves to being analysed in terms of their falsifiability. Instead, they are instruments that allow speakers to change the state of affairs. This is tantamount to saying that we use language mainly as a tool to do things, and we do so by means of performing hundreds of ordinary verbal actions of different types in daily life, such as make telephone calls, baptise children, or fire an employee.

The fact that not all sentences are a matter of truth verifiability was first advanced by Aristotle who, in his De Interpretatione , argued that:

there are in the mind thoughts which do not involve truth or falsity, and also those which must be either true or false, so it is in speech. [. . .] A sentence is a significant portion of speech [. . .] Yet every sentence is not a proposition; only such are propositions as have in them either truth or falsity. [. . .] Let us therefore dismiss all other types of sentence but the proposition, for this last concerns our present inquiry, whereas the investigation of the others belongs rather to the study of rhetoric or of poetry. (1–4)

Although he explicitly deems the nature of sentences to be uninteresting in his inquiry on apophantic logos, Aristotle represents the first account of language as action.

J. L. Austin/The Times Literary Supplement

Aristotle’s standpoint influenced the study of language for centuries and paved the way for a tradition of research on verifiability, but several German and British philosophers anticipated a view of language as a tool to change a state of affairs. The issues of language and conversation were addressed by Immanuel Kant who anticipated some concepts like ‘context’ and ‘subjective idealisation’, the rules that articulate conversation, and the para-linguistic gestures used in the accomplishment of speech acts. But it was only at the end of the nineteenth century that a more elaborate treatment of language as action was initiated.

The first, although non-systematic, study of the action-like character of language was conducted by Thomas Reid, who described different acts that can be performed through language, and grouped them into two categories: ‘solitary acts’ like judgements, intentions, deliberations and desiring, which can go unexpressed; and ‘social operations’ like commanding, promising or warning, which, by their very social nature, must be expressed. Reid’s contribution to the inception of a speech act theory can be fully understood if viewed from the wider perspective of the philosophical developments of his time.

Franz Brentano’s distinction between physical and psychological phenomena is particularly relevant in this respect because it reintroduced to philosophy the scholastic concept of‘intentionality’, which allows for a distinction between mental acts and the external world. As far as speech act theory is concerned, suffice it here to say that Brentano argued that every mental, psychological act has a content and is directed at an object (the intentional object), which means that mental phenomena contain an object intentionally within themselves and are thus definable as objectifying acts. The Brentanian approach to intentionality* allows for a distinction between linguistic expressions describing psychological phenomena and linguistic expressions describing non-psychological phenomena. Furthermore, Brentano claimed that speaking is itself an activity through which we can initiate psychic phenomena. Edmund Husserl picked up the importance of what Brentano’s psychological investigation could bring to logic*, in particular the contrast between emotional acts and objectifying acts. Husserl tackled the issue of human mental activities (‘acts’) and how they constitute the ‘object’ of knowledge through experience. In his Logical Investigations (1900/1) he developed a theory of meaning based on ‘intentionality’ which, for him, meant that consciousness entails ‘directedness’ towards an object. It is on the notion of ‘objectifying acts’, that is acts of representation, that Husserl shaped his theory of linguistic meaning, thus emphasising the referential use of language. Collaterally he treated the non-representational uses of language, that is acts like asking questions, commanding or requesting.

Following Brentano and moving within the field of psychology, Anton Marty offered the first account of uses of language meant to direct others’ behaviour, like giving an order, requesting, or giving encouragement. Marty stated that sentences may hint at the speaker’s psychic processes and argued that ‘deliberate speaking is a special kind of acting, whose proper goal is to call forth certain psychic phenomena in other beings’ (1908: 284). Stemming from Brentano’s tripartite subdivision of mental phenomena into presentation, judgements, and phenomena of love and hate, Marty discriminated linguistic forms into names, statements and emotives (utterances arousing an interest), which is a model that closely resembles Karl Bühler’s Sprachtheorie. It is precisely to Bühler that we owe the coinage of the label ‘speech act theory’. He offered the first thorough study of the functions of language – Darstellung (representation), Kindgabe (intimation or expression), and Auslösung (arousal or appeal) – thus endowing non-representational sentences with their own status.

A more complete treatment we find in the work of Adolf Reinach, who offered the first systematic theory of speech acts. Reinach received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Munich; his dissertation was on the concept of cause in penal law. It was within the context of legal language that Reinach argued in favour of the relevance of speech acts which he referred to, presumably independently of Reid’s work, as ‘social acts, that is acts of the mind that are performed in the very act of speaking’. Reinach (1913) provided a detailed taxonomy of social acts as performative* utterances and their modification, and stated very clearly that the utterance ( Äusserung ) of a social act is different from the inner experience of emotions like anger or shame and from statements ( Konstatierungen ) about experiences. It is precisely the recourse to the physical medium, the Äusserung , that transforms the philosophical category of action into a social act. Drawing on previous literature, Reinach separated actions from internal experiences. Then he discriminated between external actions like kissing or killing and linguistic actions, and within this class he distinguished between social acts, which are performed in every act of speaking, and actions, where signs are used but no speech act is performed such as in ‘solitary asserting’ and emotive uses of language. The final distinction refers to the linguistic actions performed in uttering performative formulae and the linguistic and nonlinguistic actions whose performance has an effect on the state of affairs and even changes it.

While Reinach’s ideas were spreading through the Munich scholars, at Oxford A. J. Ayer, considered the philosophical successor of Bertrand Russell, deemed philosophically interesting only those sentences that can be subject to the truth-condition analysis. In line with the logical positivism* of the Vienna Circle, Ayer developed the verification principle in Language, Truth and Logic (1936) where he stated that a sentence is meaningful only if it has verifiable import. Sentences expressing judgements, evaluation and the like were not to be objects of scientific inquiry. This stance, which is now known as the ‘descriptive fallacy’, led him into conflict with Oxford linguist philosophers like Gilbert Ryle and J. L. Austin, who instead were greatly influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein. He claimed that a language consists of a wide multiplicity of structures and usages that logical positivists had neglected to analyse but which encompass the majority of what human beings say in their construction of meaning.

Following Wittgenstein’s insights into language and putting himself against the positivist background, Gilbert Ryle rejected the Cartesian mind-body dualism in The Concept of Mind ( 1949), and revived the centrality of the standard uses of language, thus contributing to the development of ‘ordinary language philosophy’* in Oxford.

Taking the same veil and influenced by Husserl, Austin rejected the account that only sentences that are meant to describe a state of affairs are worth studying, and he observed that verifiable sentences are only a small part of the large amount of utterances produced by language users. Not all utterances express propositions: many perform actions as, for example, greetings or orders, which resist a truth-conditional analysis. Indeed, most of the sentences uttered by speakers are used in such a way as to perform more fundamental things in verbal interactions, such as naming a ship, marrying a couple, or making a request. In daily life we perform many ordinary verbal actions, and utterances are used in speech events to accomplish all that is achieved through language. Austin’s speech act theory was first delineated in the notes he prepared for some lectures interestingly entitled Words and Deeds which he delivered at Oxford University from 1952 to 1954. Such notes constituted the basis on which he developed his Harvard lectures in 1955, posthumously published in 1962. In the first phase of development of his theory, Austin retained the Aristotelian distinction between apophantic and non-apophantic logos, and introduced the terms of constative utterances and performative utterances, where the former describe or constate a state of affairs and the latter perform actions. Austin later realised that a clear distinction between the two types of utterances is unsustainable. If, for example, we say ‘There is a rat under your chair’, we do more than assert a state of affairs: we warn someone about a possible danger. Assertions can thus be used to perform such acts as to warn, to apologise, and many more. Austin then abandoned the dichotomy and contended that to say something equals to perform something.

According to Austin, when we say something, we perform three acts simultaneously: a locutionary act, an illocutionary act, and a perlocutionary act. At the locutionary level, a speaker produces sounds (phonetic act) which are well ordered with respect to the phonological system and grammar of a particular language (phatic act), and carry some sense with respect to the semantic and pragmatic rules of that language (rhetic act). At the illocutionary level, he is expressing his intention by virtue of conventions shared in his speech community. At the perlocutionary level, he performs a third act which includes the consequences of his speaking, and he has only limited control over them. In order for the speechact to be successful, it must fulfil some appropriateness conditions, or ‘felicity’ conditions: locution is successful if words and sounds are correctly produced; illocution is appropriate if it meets the conditions for its realisation; perlocution may be effective when it produces consequences desired by the producer. The notion of illocutionary force embodies the philosophical notion of intentionality, which can be expressed by performing a speech act through three modalities: (1) directly or indirectly through the performance of another speech act (‘Pass me the salt’ versus ‘Can you pass me the salt?’); literally or non-literally depending on the way words are used (‘Stick it in your head’); (3) explicitly or inexplicitly when meaning is spelled out fully or incompletely (‘I’ll be back later, Mary’s ready’). Indirectness and nonliterality are disambiguated by way of a conversational implicature*, whereas explicitation is achieved through expansion or completion of what one says.

John Searle, one of Austin’s students, contributed widely to developing speech act theory, which he addressed from the viewpoint of intentionality. Specifically he conceived of linguistic intentionality as derived from mental intentionality. In his Speech Acts (1969) Searle claimed that Austin’s ‘felicity conditions’ are constitutive rules of speech acts to the extent that to perform a speech act means to meet the conventional rules which constitute a specific speech act. Moving from this approach and analysing the act of promising, Searle proposed a classification of speech acts into four categories: (1) propositional content (what the speech act isabout); (2) preparatory condition, which states the prerequisites for the speech act; (3) sincerity condition (the speaker has to sincerely intend to keep a promise); and (4) essential condition (the speaker’s intention that the utterance counts as an act and as such is to be recognised by the hearer). One of Searle’s major contributions to the theory refers to indirectness, that is the mismatch between an utterance and an illocutionary force.

The interpretation of indirect speech acts has drawn a great deal of attention. Drawing on H. P. Grice’s pragmatics, most scholars assume that some inferential work on the part of the hearer is required in order to identify the speaker’s communicative intention and the core question is how such inference can be computed. Searle (1975) assumes that the hearer recognises both a direct-literal force, which he understands as the secondary force, and an indirect-nonliteral force, which is the primary force. Similarly Dan Gordon and George Lakoff (1975) argue that inference rules that they label ‘conversational postulates’ reduce the amount of inferential computing necessary to disambiguate an indirect speech act. Jerrold Sadock (1974) departs from the inferential hypothesis and proposes ‘the idiom model’ by claiming that a speech act like ‘Can you pass me the salt?’ is promptly interpreted as a request and needs no inference.

Speech act theory received great attention and valid theoretical proposals from cognitive linguists. Klaus Panther and Linda Thornburg (1998) claim that our knowledge of illocutionary meaning may be systematically organised in the form of what they call ‘illocutionary scenarios’. They are formed by a before, a core, and an after component. If a person wants someone to bring him his pen, he can utter a direct speech act like ‘Bring me my pen’, which exploits the core component, or he can make his request indirectly exploiting either the before component (‘Can you bring me my pen?’) where the modal verb ‘can’ points to the hearer’s ability to perform the action, or the after component (‘You will bring me my pen, won’t you?’) where the auxiliary ‘will’ instantiates the after component of the request scenario. Panther (2005) makes the point that metonymies provide natural ‘inference schemas’ which are constantly used by speakers in meaning construction and interpretation. Scenarios may be accessed metonymically by invoking relevant parts of them. Indirect requests like ‘Can you open the door?’, ‘Will you close the window?’, ‘Do you have hot chocolate?’ exploit all pre-conditions for the performance of a request, that is, the ability and willingness of the hearer, and his possession of the required object. Such pre-conditions are used to stand for the whole speech act category. By means of the explicit mention of one of the components of the scenario, it is possible for the speaker to afford access to the hearer to the whole illocutionary category of ‘requesting’ in such a way that the utterance is effortlessly interpreted as a request. With a view to improving Panther’s proposal, Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza (2007) contends that illocutionary meaning is directly tied to the notion of Idealised Cognitive Models (ICMs), which are principle-governed cognitive structures. Illocutionary scenarios represent the way in which language users construct interactional meaning representations abstracted away from a number of stereotypical illocutionary situations. In an indirect request like ‘I fancy going out for dinner’ the hearer understands the implicated meaning by relying on high-level situational ICMs – that is, on the generic knowledge that expressing a wish indirectly corresponds to asking for its fulfillment. Thus, it is exactly the quick and easy retrieval from our long-term memory of a stored illocutionary scenario that allows us to identify the nature of indirectness.

Speech act theory is a thought-provoking issue which has attracted the interest of philosophers of language and linguists from diverse theoretical persuasions. Manifold aspects of the theory are being debated such as the classification of speech acts, the relationship between speech acts and culture, and the acquisition of speech acts by children, which proves how this area of language research still provides room for developments and new insights.

Primary sources Aristotle (1941). De Interpretatione. New York: Random House. 38–61. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gordon D. and G. Lakoff (1975). ‘Conversational postulates’. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 83–106. Husserl, E. (1900/1). Logische Untersuchungen. Halle: Nyemeier.Panther, K. U. and L. Thornburg (1998). ‘A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation’. Journal of Pragmatics 30: 755–69. Panther K. U. (2005). ‘The role of conceptual metonymy in meaning construction’. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza and S.Peña (eds), Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 353–86. Reinach, A. (1913). ‘Die apriorischen Grundlagen des bürgerlichen Rechtes’. In Jahrbuch für Philosophie und phänomenologische Forschung 1: 685–847. Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2007). ‘High level cognitive models: in search of a unified framework for inferential and grammatical behavior’. In Krzysztof Kosecki (ed.), Perspectives on Metonymy. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 1130. Ryle G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson. Sadock J. (1974). Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. Searle J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle J. R. (1975). ‘Indirect speech acts’. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 59–82. Wittgenstein L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Further reading Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. London: Gollancz. Brentano, F. (1874). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Leipzig: Duncke and Humbolt. Marty, A. (1908). Untersuchungen zur Grundlegung der allgemeinen Grammatik und Sprachphilosophie. Halle: Nyemeier. Reid, T. (1894). The Works of Thomas Reid. Edinburgh: Maclachlan and Stewart.

Source: Key Ideas in Linguistics and the. Philosophy of Language. Edited by Siobhan Chapman and Christopher Routledge. Edinburgh University Press. 2009.

Notes to Speech Acts

1. In his The A Priori Foundations of the Civil Law (1913), the Austrian jurist Adolf Reinach developed what he termed a theory of “social acts” prefiguring many of the themes of later Anglo-American work on speech acts. For an appraisal see Mulligan 1987. See also K. Schuhmann and B. Smith 1991 for a discussion of some elements of speech act theory in the thought of Thomas Reid. Smith 1990 offers a more general historical survey.

2. See Gorman 1999, however, for a detailed account of how literary theory has appropriated a distorted view of speech acts.

3. In what follows I shall use ‘utterance’ to refer to any production by an agent of meaningful words. Uses of Nicaraguan Sign Language, Morse Code, and my repetition of words I overhear from another language but do not understand all count as utterances on this permissive criterion.

4. The term ‘performative’ has been appropriated in fields outside Philosophy. For instance, social scientists sometimes describe utterances as performative on the ground that they “enact the events they describe“ (Callon 2006). ‘Leading economic indicators are positive,’ when spoken by the U.S. Federal Reserve can help to ensure that such indicators are positive. Notwithstanding the interest of the phenomenon, this usage would also treat ‘This sentence is true’ as performative, and likewise for ‘I am whispering,’ when said in whisper. To avoid confusion we will not adopt this inclusive usage. See Callon (2006) and Miller (2007) for further discussions of performativity conforming to this usage.

5. In that same article, Searle notes Austin’s definition of ‘rhetic act’ as an utterance of words with a definite sense and reference. He then points out that Austin’s examples of indirect reports of rhetic acts generally contain illocutionary verbs, such as we find in ‘He told me to get out,’ and ‘He asked whether it was in Oxford or Cambridge.’ Searle concludes that all rhetic acts are therefore illocutionary acts. Unfortunately, this conclusion depends on an over-generalization from the cases Austin considers. Another perfectly adequate report of a rhetic act is simply, ‘She said that she would be more punctual in the future.’ In this case, we have no idea whether the speaker is being described as predicting or promising or just practicing lines from a play. Searle’s conclusion (1968, p. 413) that all rhetic acts are also illocutionary acts is thus unwarranted by his argument on its behalf.

6. König and Seimund (2007) provide an extensive cross-linguistic study of the interaction of illocutionary force with grammatical mood.

7. See the essays collected in Warnock 1973 for speculation about Austin's research plans that were tragically cut short by his early death.

8. The characterization is thus analogous to the way in which some non-classical logical theories describe some proposition as being neither True nor False, but as having a third truth value, N : Evidently that is not to say that such propositions are bereft of truth value. It is difficult to discern from such accounts how one sheds light on a speech act in characterizing it as having a null direction of fit, as opposed to having no direction of fit at all. See Humberstone 1992 for a fuller discussion of the notion of direction of fit.

9. In his groundbreaking discussion of implicature, Grice (1989) appears to treat conversational implicata as cases of speaker meaning. This might encourage the view that what is implicated must also be a speech act. It may well be that some implicata area also illocutions. However, many are not. If A asks B, “Where is C,” and B replies, “Downtown somewhere,” B may well be indicating that she is not in a position to be any more specific about C’s whereabouts. However, it is doubtful that she is asserting that she is in no such position. After all, if B did know precisely where in Downtown C is, she would be misleading in responding to A as she did, but she would not be a liar. By contrast, one who asserts something she does not believe to be true has lied. Accordingly, understanding indirect speech acts in terms of implicature does not guarantee that they will turn out to be illocutions after all.

10. Millikan writes, “Natural conventionality is composed of two, quite simple, related characteristics. First, natural conventions consist of patterns that are “reproduced” in a sense to be defined. Second, the fact that these patterns proliferate is due partly to the weight of precedent rather than due, for example, to their intrinsically superior capacity to perform certain functions. That is all.” (1998, p. 162)

11. I take it that the “certain condition” Searle refers to in the passage quoted can be specified without his claim becoming trivial.

12. This terminology is misleading because according to philosophers' usage, an act can be one of speaker meaning with no sounds uttered or even any inscriptions made. For instance two hunters with no common language might communicate with pantomime, so that when one acts out the path of attack he means, in the sense of speaker meaning, that the other is to approach the mammoth from behind. In spite of the misleading nature of the jargon of speaker meaning I shall retain it rather than introduce new nomenclature.

13. It may be that in the case imagined I am talking to myself, only making as if to talk to my daughter. This does not, however, support the contention that I am aiming to produce beliefs, or any other cognitive change, in her, myself, or anyone else. We observe here also that Armstrong 1971 quite reasonably offers an account of speaker meaning in terms of objectives rather than intentions, his reason being that the latter notion is narrower than the former. One who intends a certain result must believe that the thing aimed at is within her power, while one who has that result as an objective need not do so. Presently we shall show an affinity between Armstrong's position and that offered below. However, just replacing ‘intention’ with ‘objective’ in Grice's account will not deal with the cases we have considered. It is not part of my objective to produce an effect in my newborn daughter in uttering the last line of Spinoza's Ethics . Similarly it need be no part of the objective of the framed suspect in maintaining her innocence to produce effects on her interrogators. Instead she may say what she does in order to make public, for anyone who may be concerned with the matter, her avowal of innocence. Her objective is simply to establish a pattern of consistently maintained innocence.

14. Following a suggestion of Schiffer (1972, p. 15), Strawson (1970, p. 7), and Bennett (1976, p. 271), Avramides 1989 proposes in response to these kinds of case that the speaker is addressing himself, intending in particular to produce a certain cognitive effect in himself. While it may be that in the newborn daughter and Sleeper cases the speaker is addressing himself, it neither follows, nor does it seem true, that in those cases the speaker is intending to produce any cognitive effect in himself. Certainly we sometimes address ourselves in order to produce a cognitive effect: ‘I can do it!’ as I sprint up the steep road, or ‘945-6743, 945-6743’ as I try to internalize a phone number I just got out of the phone book. However, I already believe that all things valuable are difficult as they are rare. In fact it is a belief I have held firmly since encountering it in Spinoza two decades ago, and I actively believe it as I reflect upon the number of diapers I will have changed by the time I am forty. As a result it is quite unclear what cognitive effect I might be trying to produce in myself in saying what I do. Again, Miles Monroe does not need to produce in himself, or strengthen or activate, the belief that the chicken before him is big. His own eyes have already done that for him. Likewise it is far from clear what belief the framed suspect might be trying to produce or strengthen or activate in herself as she maintains her innocence. The suspect knows perfectly well that she has never set foot in the part of town in which the crime was committed, and that she has no idea how to use the garotte with which the victim was killed. (Avramides' discussion here is confusing because she first responds to a case, due to Harman, of a person maintaining a proposition in full knowledge that no one will believe him, with the words, 'I think that in Harman's case the speaker is not really speaking to an audience at all' (p. 64). But then two pages later Avramides writes, ‘The misleading thing about Harman's case is that there appears to be an audience present. The speaker, however, does not really address his utterance to those present….If this is true, why not say that in such cases the speaker intends his audience to be himself…’ (p. 66). I shall take Avramides to hold the view that in these cases the speaker does have an audience, namely himself.)

15. Hajdin 1991 argues that attending to illocutionary force and semantic content is insufficient to account for the meaning of even paradigm speech acts such as promising. His reason is that one can know that a promise that agents A and B will not, say hold hands, has been made, without knowing who is responsible for ensuring that that promise is carried out. (It might be A, B or a third party.) However, even if it is true that specifying a “force/content pair” is insufficient to answer this question, it does not follow, and is not true, that such facts about responsibility are aspects either of what is meant or how it is meant.

16. See the essays collected in Parrett and J. Verschueren 1992.

17. Artificial Intelligence research has employed the tools of speech act theory to help automated systems determine the plans of human agents. Prominent examples are the chapters in Cohen, Morgan and Pollack 1990, and Shoham 1993.

18. Adapted from Green 2000. An argument is illocutionarily sound just in case it is both illocutionarily valid and all its premises are such that their conditions of satisfaction are met. A fuller account of illocutionary validity would employ further distinctions. For example, two assertoric commitments may be alike save for differing in strength; these differences are usually described as differences in subjective probability, which could be represented as differences in the strength of commitment. Again, we could distinguish among the different possible objects of commitment, since there is nothing to rule out being committed to a question or to an imperative. These distinctions within the dimension of mode, strength and object of commitment are taken into account in Green 2000. See also Harrah (1980, 1994) for a discussion of assertoric, erotetic, and projective commitment. Observe also that the truth-preservation notion of validity may be seen as a special case of the commitment-preservation notion as follows: Treat each of the sentences in the argument counting as valid in the former sense as being put forth in assertoric mode, and treat each such sentence as declarative. Illocutionary validity is thus not a rival to the truth-preservation notion, but is instead a generalization thereof.

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Stanford Center for the Study of Language and Information

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Speech Act Theory – Types, Components and Examples

Table of Contents

Introduction

Welcome to our blog post, titled: Speech Act Theory – Types, Components and Examples where we are going to delve into the fascinating realm of speech act theory. Speech Act Theory Types and Examples is an aspect of Pragmatics worth exploring. Speech act theory, developed by philosophers J. L Austin and further expanded upon by John Searle , explores the various actions performed through language. It analyses the ways in which speakers not only convey information but also carry out social actions, make requests, give orders, and more, all through the use of speech acts. In this lecture, we will explore the main components of speech act theory, examine different types of speech acts, and provide numerous examples to deepen our understanding.

Understanding Speech Act Theory

Speech act theory, a vital branch of pragmatics , investigates the performative aspects of language. It delves into how our utterances go beyond mere statements of fact or beliefs, enabling us to perform social actions, make requests, give orders, express emotions, and more. By recognizing that speech acts encompass both informative and interactive dimensions, we gain a deeper understanding of how language shapes our interactions.

Exploring Speech Act Components

To comprehend the essence of speech acts, we must grasp the three fundamental components involved which are: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.

Locutionary Act

The locutionary act constitutes the basic act of uttering words and constructing meaningful sentences. It is the surface-level form of speech that encompasses the phonetic, syntactic, and semantic aspects of speech. For instance, saying, “It’s raining outside,” serves as a locutionary act by conveying a proposition.

Illocutionary Act

The illocutionary act represents the intended meaning or force behind the utterance. It is the social act performed by the speaker through the use of language. Illocutionary acts can include making requests, giving orders, offering apologies, expressing congratulations, and many more. For instance, saying “Could you please close the window?” is an illocutionary act that functions as a polite request.

Perlocutionary Act

The perlocutionary act focuses on the effects or consequences of the utterance on the listener. It refers to the impact that the speaker intends to have on the listener’s beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours. For example, if someone says, “You’re so talented,” their intention may be to boost the listener’s confidence or create a positive impression.

Types of Speech Acts

Speech acts can be categorized into various types, based on their illocutionary force and intended meaning. Let’s explore some of the main categories:

Directives encompass speech acts that aim to prompt the listener to take specific actions; that is, to do something. They include requests, commands, invitations, and suggestions. For example:

Could you please pass me the salt?
Take out the trash right now!
Please close the door.
Could you pass me the pen, please?
Don’t forget to finish your homework.
Put your phone away during class.
Clean up your room before dinner.
Be quiet and listen to the instructions.
Take out the trash before you leave.
Raise your hand if you have a question.
Finish your vegetables before having dessert.
Stop running and walk in the hallway.

Commissives

Commissives involve committing oneself to future actions or courses of behaviour. These speech acts encompass promises, vows, oaths, and guarantees. Examples include:

I promise to be there on time.
I guarantee I’ll finish the report by tomorrow.
I’ll meet you at the library tomorrow.
I guarantee I’ll return your book by Friday.
I swear I won’t tell anyone your secret.
I’ll support you in your new business venture.
I commit to attending the event next week.
I’ll make sure to send you the document later.
I’ll give you a call to discuss the details.
I promise to help you with your project.
I’ll write a letter of recommendation for you.
I’ll take care of the arrangements for the party.

Expressives

Expressives pertain to speech acts that express the speaker’s psychological state, feelings, or attitudes. They include apologizing, thanking, congratulating, sympathizing, etc. For instance:

I’m sorry for your loss.
Thank you so much for your help!
I’m sorry for accidentally breaking your toy.
I’m so excited about our upcoming field trip!
Congratulations on winning the game!
I’m glad you passed the exam.
I’m really proud of your hard work.
I’m deeply saddened by the news of his passing.
I’m grateful for your support and encouragement.
I’m thrilled to be part of the team.
I’m relieved that the project is finally complete.
I’m disappointed that we couldn’t attend the concert.

Declarations

Declarations are speech acts that bring about a change in the world through the mere act of uttering. They include pronouncing someone husband and wife, declaring war, firing someone, etc. Examples include:

I now pronounce you husband and wife.
I declare this meeting adjourned.
I hereby declare this meeting open.
I declare my candidacy for student council president.
I proclaim today as a day of celebration.
I officially announce the launch of our new product.
I pronounce this book as a literary masterpiece.
I declare the debate competition closed.
I affirm my commitment to environmental conservation.
I assert that our team deserves the first-place trophy.
I state that the evidence supports my argument.
I assert that freedom of speech is a fundamental right.

Assertives involve stating a proposition or expressing a belief. These speech acts can be true or false and include assertions, claims, and descriptions. For example:

The Earth revolves around the Sun.
I think it will rain tomorrow.
Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius.
The capital of France is Paris.
Dogs are mammals.
The square of any number is always positive.
The United States declared independence in 1776.
The Great Wall of China is visible from space.
Mount Everest is the highest peak in the world.
Cats are more active during the night.
Light travels faster than sound.

Speech Act Theory in Context

It is essential to recognize that the interpretation of speech acts heavily relies on the context, including cultural norms, social expectations, and the relationship between the speaker and the listener. A simple request can be conveyed differently based on the context:

A boss might say, “I need that report on my desk by noon,” as a directive.
A close friend might say, “Hey, can you pass me that book?” as a request.
A parent might say, “You should clean your room,” as an authoritative command.

Performativity

The success of a speech act relies on shared understanding and cooperation between the speaker and the listener. This is known as the principle of performativity. Let us see this more clearly…

Principle of Performativity

This is a concept within Speech Act Theory that highlights the importance of context and shared understanding in the successful execution of speech acts. It recognizes that the meaning and effectiveness of a speech act depend on the social, cultural, and linguistic context in which it is uttered. To understand the principle of performativity, let’s consider an example. Imagine a person saying the sentence, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” The meaning and impact of this statement can vary depending on the context in which it is spoken. If it is uttered by an authorized person, such as a minister or a judge, during a wedding ceremony, it has the power to legally bind two individuals in marriage. However, if the same sentence is spoken casually between friends during a conversation, it lacks the institutional and legal authority to create the same effect.

In essence, the principle of performativity suggests that speech acts derive their meaning and power from the shared understanding and conventions of a particular context. It emphasizes that successful communication depends not only on the words used but also on the social norms, cultural expectations, and linguistic conventions that govern the situation.

To achieve speech act felicity, which is the successful accomplishment of a speech act, several factors must align. These include:

Contextual Appropriateness

The speech act must be appropriate for the given context. For example, making a request for assistance in a polite manner is more suitable in a formal setting than in an informal conversation.

Conventional Understanding

Both the speaker and the listener should have a shared understanding of the intended illocutionary force of the speech act. This understanding is built upon the conventions and norms of the given culture or community.

Recognition and Acceptance

The listener must recognize the speaker’s intention and accept the speech act as intended. If the listener misinterprets the speaker’s intention, misunderstandings or breakdowns in communication can occur.

Preconditions and Preconditions

Certain preconditions and preparatory conditions must be met for the speech act to be successful. For instance, a request may require the listener to have the ability and willingness to fulfil the request.

In summary, the principle of performativity underscores that the meaning and success of a speech act depend on the context, shared understanding, and recognition between the speaker and the listener. It highlights the dynamic and contextual nature of language use and emphasizes the importance of considering these factors when analysing and interpreting speech acts.

Speech Act Felicity

This refers to the successful accomplishment of a speech act. It describes the conditions and factors that need to be satisfied for a speech act to be considered appropriate, meaningful, and effective within a given context. When a speech act is felicitous, it achieves its intended purpose and is recognized as valid by both the speaker and the listener.

To understand speech act felicity, let’s consider an example of a speech act: a request. For a request to be felicitous, several conditions must be met:

Appropriate Context

The request should be made in a context where making requests is considered appropriate. For example, asking a friend for a favour during a casual conversation is more suitable than making the same request in a formal business meeting.

Politeness and Manner

The request should be formulated in a polite and respectful manner, taking into account social norms and cultural expectations. The choice of words, tone of voice, and nonverbal cues all contribute to the success of the request.

Preparatory Conditions

The preconditions necessary for the request to be fulfilled should be in place. For instance, if you’re requesting a favour, the person you’re asking should have the ability, resources, and willingness to fulfil the request.

Mutual Recognition

The speaker’s intention to make a request should be recognized and understood by the listener. The listener should interpret the utterance as a request and respond accordingly.

If all these conditions are met, the request is considered felicitous. The speaker’s intention is successfully conveyed, and the listener recognizes the request and responds appropriately. However, if any of these conditions are not met, the request may be deemed infelicitous, leading to miscommunication or failure to achieve the intended goal.

It’s important to note that speech act felicity is context-dependent and varies across different cultures, social settings, and linguistic communities. What may be considered a felicitous speech act in one context may not be appropriate in another. Understanding the conventions and norms of a particular context is crucial for determining the felicity of speech acts.

In summary, speech act felicity refers to the successful accomplishment of a speech act, where the intended purpose is achieved and the speech act is recognized as valid within a given context. It depends on factors such as appropriateness, politeness, preparatory conditions, and mutual recognition. By considering these factors, speakers can enhance the effectiveness of their communication and ensure that their speech acts are felicitous.

Teaching Applications

Understanding Speech Act Theory can have practical applications in language teaching and communication skills development. It helps learners become aware of the different functions of language and the impact their words can have on others. By analysing and practising various speech acts, students can enhance their communicative competence and become more effective language users.

In conclusion, speech act theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the performative nature of language. By analysing the locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, we gain insights into how language not only conveys information but also performs social actions. Understanding speech acts allows us to communicate effectively, interpret intentions accurately and navigate various social contexts. In other words, the power of speech acts lies in their ability to shape our communication, influence beliefs and foster meaningful interactions.

Remember, each speech act is context-dependent and can vary based on culture, relationships, and individual perspectives. As you navigate your daily interactions, pay attention to the speech acts you encounter and reflect on their implications. Understanding the intricacies of speech act theory allows us to communicate effectively, interpret intentions accurately, and build stronger connections.

So, as we continue our exploration of pragmatics , let’s remain attentive to the power of speech acts in shaping our social interactions. Unlock the potential of speech act theory and witness the transformative impact it can have on your communication skills.

I am a teacher of English. I have a passion is to impart knowledge of the English language to the teeming populace globally; especially, students at all levels of education, so that they can acquire both linguistic competence and linguistic performance in the language, gaining mastery of and comprehending the nitty-gritty of the language.

Speech Act Theory

Speech Act Theory, pioneered by J.L. Austin and John Searle, delves into language’s action-performing aspect. It identifies illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. While enhancing communication analysis and pragmatics, it faces criticism for oversimplification and limited contextual consideration. Practical applications span language teaching and legal contexts.

Speech Act Theory is a theory of language that examines how utterances not only convey information but also perform actions. Developed by philosophers J.L. Austin and later expanded by John Searle, this theory highlights that speaking a language is not just about making statements but also about doing things with words.

Table of Contents

Key Characteristics of Speech Act Theory

Performative Utterances: Focuses on how utterances perform actions.
Illocutionary Acts: Differentiates between the act of saying something and the act performed in saying it.
Context Dependency: Emphasizes the importance of context in understanding speech acts.
Conventionality: Recognizes that speech acts rely on social conventions and norms.

Importance of Understanding Speech Act Theory

Understanding and applying Speech Act Theory is crucial for analyzing communication , enhancing linguistic competence, and improving interpersonal interactions.

Analyzing Communication

Deeper Understanding: Provides a deeper understanding of how language functions in various contexts.
Meaning Analysis: Helps analyze the meaning and implications of utterances beyond their literal content.

Enhancing Linguistic Competence

Language Use: Improves awareness of how language can be used to achieve different communicative goals.
Effective Communication: Enhances the ability to communicate effectively by understanding the performative aspects of language.

Improving Interpersonal Interactions

Interpretation: Aids in the interpretation of others’ speech acts and intentions.
Conflict Resolution: Facilitates conflict resolution by recognizing the actions performed through language.

Components of Speech Act Theory

Speech Act Theory involves several key components that contribute to its comprehensive understanding and application.

1. Locutionary Act

Utterance: The actual act of making a sound or uttering a word, phrase, or sentence.
Meaning: The literal meaning of the utterance.

2. Illocutionary Act

Performative Function: The action performed by making the utterance, such as requesting, promising, or apologizing.
Intention: The speaker’s intention in making the utterance.

3. Perlocutionary Act

Effect: The effect the utterance has on the listener, such as persuading, frightening, or comforting.
Outcome: The result or outcome of the illocutionary act on the listener.

4. Speech Act Classification

Assertives: Statements that convey information or describe the world.
Directives: Attempts to get the listener to do something, such as requests or commands.
Commissives: Commitments by the speaker to a future course of action, such as promises or offers.
Expressives: Expressions of the speaker’s emotions or attitudes, such as apologies or congratulations.
Declarations: Utterances that bring about a change in the external situation, such as pronouncing someone married.

Implementation Methods for Speech Act Theory

Several methods can be used to implement and apply Speech Act Theory effectively, each offering different strategies and tools.

1. Discourse Analysis

Contextual Examination: Analyzes the context in which speech acts occur to understand their meaning and function.
Conversation Analysis: Examines conversations to identify and classify speech acts.

2. Pragmatic Analysis

Speech Act Identification: Identifies the types of speech acts within a given discourse.
Intention Analysis: Analyzes the speaker’s intentions and the intended illocutionary force.

3. Communication Training

Workshops: Conducts workshops to teach effective communication strategies based on Speech Act Theory.
Role-Playing: Uses role-playing exercises to practice and understand different speech acts.

4. Computational Linguistics

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Applies NLP techniques to identify and analyze speech acts in text.
Speech Recognition: Develops speech recognition systems that understand and categorize speech acts.

Benefits of Speech Act Theory

Implementing Speech Act Theory offers numerous benefits, including improved communication analysis , enhanced linguistic competence, and better interpersonal interactions.

Improved Communication Analysis

Contextual Understanding: Provides a deeper understanding of how language functions in different contexts.
Nuanced Interpretation: Allows for more nuanced interpretation of spoken and written discourse.

Enhanced Linguistic Competence

Language Awareness: Increases awareness of how language can be used to perform various actions.
Effective Communication: Improves the ability to use language effectively to achieve communicative goals.

Better Interpersonal Interactions

Intent Recognition: Enhances the ability to recognize and interpret the intentions behind others’ speech acts.
Conflict Resolution: Facilitates conflict resolution by understanding the performative nature of language.

Application in Technology

AI and NLP: Enhances artificial intelligence and natural language processing applications by enabling better understanding of human language.
User Interaction: Improves user interaction in voice-activated systems and chatbots.

Challenges of Speech Act Theory

Despite its benefits, applying Speech Act Theory presents several challenges that need to be managed for successful implementation.

Context Dependency

Context Variability: Understanding the context in which a speech act occurs can be complex.
Cultural Differences: Speech acts may be interpreted differently across cultures, adding to the complexity.

Ambiguity in Classification

Overlapping Categories: Some speech acts may fall into multiple categories, making classification difficult.
Intention Interpretation: Accurately interpreting the speaker’s intention can be challenging.

Practical Application

Theoretical Complexity: Applying theoretical concepts to practical situations can be challenging.
Training: Providing effective training on Speech Act Theory requires specialized knowledge and skills.

Best Practices for Speech Act Theory

Implementing best practices can help effectively manage and overcome challenges, maximizing the benefits of Speech Act Theory.

Engage in Continuous Learning

Regular Training: Offer regular training sessions on Speech Act Theory and its applications.
Professional Development: Encourage continuous professional development to stay updated on the latest research and methodologies.

Foster Open Communication

Context Awareness: Promote awareness of the importance of context in interpreting speech acts.
Cultural Sensitivity: Encourage sensitivity to cultural differences in communication practices.

Utilize Technology

NLP Tools: Use NLP tools to analyze and categorize speech acts in large datasets.
AI Integration: Integrate AI and speech recognition technologies to enhance understanding of speech acts.

Promote Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Linguistics and Technology: Foster collaboration between linguists and technologists to develop advanced applications.
Cross-Cultural Research: Conduct cross-cultural research to understand variations in speech act interpretation.

Apply Practical Exercises

Role-Playing: Use role-playing exercises to practice and understand different speech acts.
Case Studies: Analyze case studies to see how Speech Act Theory applies in real-world scenarios.

Monitor and Evaluate

Feedback Mechanisms: Establish mechanisms for gathering feedback on the application of Speech Act Theory.
Continuous Improvement: Use feedback to continuously improve communication strategies and practices.

Future Trends in Speech Act Theory

Several trends are likely to shape the future of Speech Act Theory and its applications in communication and technology.

Digital Transformation

AI and Machine Learning: Increasing use of AI and machine learning to enhance the analysis and interpretation of speech acts.
Data Analytics: Leveraging big data analytics to gain insights into communication patterns and speech acts.

Integration with Pragmatics

Pragmatic Analysis: Integrating Speech Act Theory with pragmatic analysis for a more comprehensive understanding of language use.
Contextual Computing: Developing contextual computing systems that understand and respond to speech acts.

Enhanced Training and Education

E-Learning: Expanding e-learning platforms to provide accessible and flexible training on Speech Act Theory.
Interactive Learning: Utilizing interactive learning tools to teach and practice speech acts.

Cross-Cultural and Multilingual Research

Global Communication: Conducting research on speech acts in different languages and cultural contexts to enhance global communication.
Multilingual NLP: Developing multilingual NLP systems that accurately interpret speech acts across languages.

Application in Social Media

Social Media Analysis: Applying Speech Act Theory to analyze communication on social media platforms.
Sentiment Analysis: Enhancing sentiment analysis by incorporating speech act categorization.

Practical Examples of Speech Acts

To illustrate the application of Speech Act Theory in everyday communication, let’s consider some practical examples:

Example 1: Request

Illocutionary Act: Directive (Request) Example: “Could you please send me the report by tomorrow?”

In this example, the illocutionary act is a request. The speaker intends for the listener to perform the action of sending the report by tomorrow. If the listener agrees and complies, the perlocutionary act is the successful execution of the request.

Example 2: Command

Illocutionary Act: Directive (Command) Example: “Close the door.”

The illocutionary act here is a command, and the speaker expects the listener to immediately close the door. The perlocutionary act is the listener’s action of closing the door in response to the command.

Example 3: Promise

Illocutionary Act: Commissive (Promise) Example: “I promise I will be there on time.”

In this case, the illocutionary act is a promise, indicating the speaker’s commitment to being punctual. The perlocutionary act is the listener’s expectation of the speaker’s punctuality.

Example 4: Assertion

Illocutionary Act: Assertive (Assertion) Example: “The meeting is at 2:00 PM.”

The illocutionary act in this example is an assertion, conveying information about the time of the meeting. The perlocutionary act involves the listener processing and potentially acknowledging this information.

Speech Act Theory provides a valuable framework for understanding how language goes beyond conveying meaning to perform actions and shape interactions. It sheds light on the complexities of communication by considering the illocutionary force and felicity conditions of speech acts. Recognizing speech acts in everyday conversations enhances our ability to interpret intentions, resolve ambiguity, and navigate the social and pragmatic aspects of language. Whether in personal relationships, professional settings, or legal contexts, Speech Act Theory remains a powerful tool for analyzing the impact of language on our actions and the world around us.

Key highlights of Speech Act Theory:

Founders : Speech Act Theory was developed by philosophers J.L. Austin and later expanded upon by John Searle.
Types of Acts : The theory distinguishes between three types of acts in language: locutionary acts (producing words), illocutionary acts (performing actions through speech), and perlocutionary acts (the effects of speech on the listener).
Performative Nature : It highlights the performative nature of language, emphasizing that speech is not just about conveying information but also about performing actions.
Implications : Speech Act Theory has profound implications for the analysis of communication, as it helps us understand how language can be used to make requests, promises, assertions, questions, and commands.
Applications : It has applications in linguistics, philosophy of language, and communication studies, contributing to pragmatics and the understanding of language use in context.
Critiques : Critics argue that the theory may oversimplify the complexity of communicative acts and overlook the broader context in which language is used.
Practical Use : In practice, it is applied in language teaching to help learners use language effectively in real-life situations and in legal contexts to analyze legal documents and courtroom communication.

Connected Communication Models

Aristotle’s Model of Communication

Communication Cycle

Berlo’s SMCR Model

Helical Model of Communication

Lasswell Communication Model

Modus Tollens

Five Cannons of Rhetoric

Communication Strategy

Noise if Communication

7 Cs of Communication

Transactional Model of Communication

Horizontal Communication

Communication Apprehension

Closed-Loop Communication

Grapevine In Communication

Integrated Marketing Communication

Social Penetration Theory

Hypodermic Needle

7-38-55 Rule

Active Listening

Main Free Guides:

Business Models
Business Strategy
Business Development
Digital Business Models
Distribution Channels
Marketing Strategy
Platform Business Models
Tech Business Model

More Resources

About The Author

Gennaro Cuofano

Discover more from fourweekmba.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

🆕 Interactive Articles

Speech Act Theory in Discourse Analysis

by Discourse Analyzer
August 9, 2024 August 22, 2024

Are you ready to enhance your learning by asking the assistant?

Alternatively, if you don't have an account yet

Speech Act Theory is a foundational concept in discourse analysis that explores how language is used not just to convey information but to perform actions. Developed by philosopher J.L. Austin in the 1950s and later expanded by John Searle, Speech Act Theory examines the various ways in which utterances can function as actions in communication. This theory is crucial in discourse analysis because it helps to understand how people achieve different communicative goals through language .

Locutionary, Illocutionary, and Perlocutionary Acts

Types of illocutionary acts, everyday conversation, political discourse, legal discourse, understanding pragmatic meaning, analyzing power and authority, cultural and social norms, frequently asked questions, 1. key concepts of speech act theory.

Speech Act Theory categorizes the different aspects of an utterance into three types of acts:

Example : Saying “It’s raining outside.”
Example : Saying “It’s raining outside” to inform someone about the weather (informing), to suggest they take an umbrella (suggesting), or to explain why the picnic is canceled (explaining).
Example : After saying “It’s raining outside,” the listener decides to bring an umbrella (persuading), feels disappointed about the canceled picnic (causing disappointment), or rushes to close the windows (prompting action).

John Searle further categorized illocutionary acts into different types based on their function:

Example : “The meeting starts at 10 AM.” (informing)
Example : “Could you pass the salt?” (requesting)
Example : “I promise to call you tomorrow.” (promising)
Example : “I’m sorry for being late.” (apologizing)
Example : “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” (declaring)

2. Examples of Speech Acts in Discourse Analysis

In everyday discourse, speech acts are often used to achieve practical goals. Consider a simple exchange:

Locutionary Act : The speaker produces the utterance “Can you open the window?”
Illocutionary Act : The speaker is making a request (directive).
Perlocutionary Act : The listener opens the window, or they might refuse.

This example shows how the speaker uses a directive to prompt a specific action from the listener.

In political discourse , speech acts can have significant social implications. For example, when a politician says:

Locutionary Act : The politician produces the statement of resignation.
Illocutionary Act : The act of resigning (declaration) changes the political status of the speaker.
Perlocutionary Act : The resignation affects the government, the political party, and the public, leading to various reactions and consequences.

Here, the illocutionary act of resignation directly alters the political landscape.

In legal settings, declarations are particularly important. Consider a judge in a courtroom:

Locutionary Act : The judge utters the sentence.
Illocutionary Act : The judge declares a legal punishment (declaration).
Perlocutionary Act : The defendant is legally obligated to serve the prison sentence, and this affects their life and the legal process.

This example demonstrates how legal language can have direct and immediate consequences through speech acts.

3. Importance of Speech Act Theory in Discourse Analysis

Speech Act Theory helps discourse analysts move beyond the literal meaning of words to understand the speaker’s intentions and the pragmatic meaning of utterances. This is essential in contexts where what is said differs from what is meant, such as in irony, sarcasm, or indirect speech acts.

In discourse analysis, Speech Act Theory is valuable for examining how power and authority are exercised through language. For instance, who has the authority to make declarations (like a judge or a politician), and how does this authority shape the interaction ?

Speech Act Theory also highlights how different cultures and social contexts influence the use and interpretation of speech acts. What is considered polite, authoritative, or appropriate can vary widely, and understanding these nuances is crucial for effective communication analysis.

Speech Act Theory is a foundational tool in discourse analysis that provides a framework for understanding how language functions as a form of action. By categorizing utterances into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, and analyzing different types of illocutionary acts (assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations), discourse analysts can explore the ways in which language is used to perform actions, convey intentions, and influence listeners. This approach is essential for understanding the complexities of communication in various social, political, and legal contexts.

Speech Act Theory, developed by J.L. Austin and later expanded by John Searle, is a foundational concept in discourse analysis that explores how language is used to perform actions, not just to convey information. It examines how utterances function in communication, focusing on the intentions behind the words and the effects they have on listeners.

Speech acts are composed of three main components: Locutionary Act : The act of producing a specific utterance, focusing on the actual words and their literal meaning. Illocutionary Act : The intention behind the utterance, such as informing, requesting, or promising. Perlocutionary Act : The effect the utterance has on the listener, such as persuading, comforting, or prompting an action.

John Searle categorized illocutionary acts into five types: Assertives : Statements that convey information or describe the world, asserting something to be true or false. Directives : Utterances intended to get the listener to do something, such as commands or requests. Commissives : Utterances that commit the speaker to a future course of action, like promises or vows. Expressives : Utterances that express the speaker’s emotions or attitudes, such as apologies or congratulations. Declarations : Utterances that change the state of affairs by their very utterance, such as resigning or declaring war.

In everyday conversations, speech acts are used to achieve practical goals. For example, if someone says, “Can you open the window?” the locutionary act is the literal request, the illocutionary act is the intention to request action, and the perlocutionary act is whether the listener opens the window or not.

In political discourse, speech acts can have significant consequences. For example, when a politician says, “I hereby resign,” the illocutionary act is the act of resigning, which directly alters the political situation, and the perlocutionary act includes the various reactions and consequences that follow.

In legal discourse, speech acts are often used to enact decisions and enforce laws. For example, when a judge says, “I sentence you to five years in prison”, the illocutionary act is the legal declaration of a sentence, and the perlocutionary act is the legal obligation for the defendant to serve the sentence, which significantly impacts their life.

Understanding pragmatic meaning is crucial because it allows discourse analysts to move beyond the literal meaning of words to grasp the speaker’s intentions and the context in which the utterance is made. This is particularly important in understanding indirect speech, irony, or sarcasm.

Speech Act Theory is valuable for examining how power and authority are exercised through language. For example, only certain individuals, like judges or politicians, have the authority to make declarations that can change social or legal realities . Analyzing these acts helps understand the role of language in maintaining or challenging power structures.

Cultural and social norms significantly influence how speech acts are used and interpreted. Different cultures may have varying expectations of politeness, authority, or appropriateness, and understanding these norms is essential for effective communication analysis in different contexts.

Speech Act Theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how language functions as a form of action. By analyzing locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts, discourse analysts can explore how language is used to perform actions, convey intentions, and influence listeners. This approach is essential for understanding the complexities of communication in various social, political, and legal contexts.

SPEECH ACT THEORY

INTRODUCTION

The speech act theory considers language as a sort of action rather than a medium to convey and express. The contemporary Speech act theory developed by J. L. Austin a British philosopher of languages, he introduced this theory in 1975 in his well-known book of ‘How do things with words’. Later John Searle brought the aspects of theory into much higher dimensions. This theory is often used in the field of philosophy of languages. Austin is the one who came up with the findings that people not only uses that language to assert things but also to do things. And people who followed him went to greater depths based on this point.

All sort of linguist communication are comprised of linguistic actions. Previously it was conceived that the very basic unit of communication is words, Symbols, sentences or some kind of token of all of these, but it was speech act theory which suggested that production or issuances if words, symbols are the basic units of communication. This issuance happens during the process of performance of speech act. The meaning of these basic units was considered as the building blocks of mutual understanding between the people intend to communicate.

“ A theory of language is a theory of action”- Greig E. Henderson and Christopher Brown.

The theory emphasis that the utterances have a different or specific meaning to its user and listener other than its meaning according to the language. The theory further identify that there are two kinds of utterances, they are called constative and performative utterances. In his book of ‘How do things with words’ Austin clearly talks about the disparities between the constative and performative utterances.

A constative utterances is something which describes or denotes the situation, in relation with the fact of true or false.

Example: The teacher asked Olivia whether she had stolen the candy. Olivia replies “mmmmmm”. Here the utterances of Olivia describes the event in pact of answering her teacher whether the situation was true or false.

The performative utterances is something which do not describes anything at all. The utterances in the sentences or in the part of sentences are normally considered as having a meaning of its own. The feelings, attitudes, emotions and thoughts of the person performing linguistic act are much of a principal unit here.

Example: Bane and Sarah have been dating for the past four years. One fine evening Bane took Sarah to the most expensive restaurant in town. And he ordered the most expensive wine available in the restaurant. Then he moved closer to her and asked her that “ will you marry me?”. Sarah burst with contentment and replied “I will”. Here the “I will” of Sarah express her feelings, attitudes and emotional towards the context. This utterances have its specific meaning only in relation to it specific context.

Further Austin divides his linguistic act into three different categories. They are,

Locutionary act – This is the act of saying something. It has a meaning and it creates an understandable utterly to convey or express
Illocutionary act – It is performed as an act of saying something or as an act of opposed to saying something. The illocutionary utterance has a certain force of it. It well well-versed with certain tones, attitudes, feelings, or emotions. There will be an intention of the speaker or others in illocutionary utterance. It is often used as a tone of warning in day today life
Perlocutionary act – It normally creates a sense of consequential effects on the audiences. The effects may be in the form of thoughts, imaginations, feelings or emotions. The effect upon the addressee is the main charactership of perlocutionary utterances

For example

The locutionary act describes a dangerous situation, the illocutionary act acts as a force of the warning and perlocutionary acts frighten the addressee.

Austin himself admits that these three components of utterances are not altogether separable.“We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued- the total speech act – if we are to see the parallel between statements and performative utterance, and how each can go wrong. Perhaps indeed there is no great distinction between statements and performative utterances.” Austin.

Searle suggested that the basic unit of linguistic communication is speech act. It can be a word, a phrase, a sentence or a sound, it should fulfil the task of expressing the intention of the user. Understanding the user’s intention can lead to complete understanding of the speech act.

The context of speech act is in the context of situation than explanation. The speech act borrows it ideas from structuralism. The indirect speech act of John Searle was developed based on Austin’s speech act.

MEDIUM THEORY
Diffusion of Innovation Theory
Computer Mediated Communication

It has written in fabulous manner!!

lookie here

It is a nice script

very triggering to think more about language as cognition, languange as emotion, and language as action

please give us more example of the three levels of speech acts

The simplest and easiest explanation there is. Brief but direct to the point. 🙂

Till now i cannot get it,dod Austen devide Speech acts into constative and performative OR locutionary,illocutionary ,perlocutionary???

It’s a wonderful piece and wish to get more

learned a lot. Thanks!

Article is insightful and straight forward. Thumbs up.

Learned great from it

I do agree with Mari that more specific example is needed for each classification. Without such example， we are still hanging with those philosophical words.

Very impressive!

Thank you, for your contribution.

İ needed to read this twice to understand. The theory isn’t easy to understand in my opinion.

I got a little confusion on locutionary , illocutionary & perlocutionar also in the perforamtive & constative I’ m asking for more examples that I can be well on it.. but the rest are perfect understandable..

Very impressive, direct to the point hence easy to understand,, thanks much…!!

Nicely explained in precise manner.

Nice material

Really helpful for my graduation research and quoted some of it, I’m very grateful.

Paul C. Hoffman dice

Really helpful for my research Nice material

Thank you for this explanation!

Good explanation

Well develop and simple

IMAGES

Speech act theory
PPT
Speech act theory
Speech Act Theory
Speech act theory
Speech Act Theory_word文档在线阅读与下载_无忧文档

COMMENTS

What Is The Speech Act Theory: Definition and Examples
Jun 7, 2024 · Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism "Since 1970 speech act theory has influenced...the practice of literary criticism. When applied to the analysis of direct discourse by a character within a literary work, it provides a systematic...framework for identifying the unspoken presuppositions, implications, and effects of speech acts [that] competent readers and critics have always taken into ...
Speech Act Theory: Definition & Examples | StudySmarter
Speech Act Theory - Key takeaways. Speech Act Theory Definition: A concept in linguistics and philosophy of language where words are used to perform actions, not just convey information. Austin and Searle Speech Act Theory: Developed by philosophers John L. Austin and later expanded by John Searle, focusing on the performative nature of language.
Speech Act Theory | How Words Shape Meaning & Interactions
Jun 27, 2023 · Types of Speech Acts. Speech Act Theory categorises speech acts into three main types: assertive, directive, and expressive. Assertive speech acts aim to convey information, such as stating facts or making claims. Directive speech acts involve issuing commands or requests. Expressive speech acts express emotions, attitudes, or feelings.
Speech Act Theory - Literary Theory and Criticism
Oct 11, 2020 · In daily life we perform many ordinary verbal actions, and utterances are used in speech events to accomplish all that is achieved through language. Austin’s speech act theory was first delineated in the notes he prepared for some lectures interestingly entitled Words and Deeds which he delivered at Oxford University from 1952 to 1954. Such ...
Notes to Speech Acts - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
For an appraisal see Mulligan 1987. See also K. Schuhmann and B. Smith 1991 for a discussion of some elements of speech act theory in the thought of Thomas Reid. Smith 1990 offers a more general historical survey. 2. See Gorman 1999, however, for a detailed account of how literary theory has appropriated a distorted view of speech acts. 3.
Speech act - Wikipedia
Speech act theory hails from Wittgenstein's philosophical theories. Wittgenstein believed meaning derives from pragmatic tradition, demonstrating the importance of how language is used to accomplish objectives within specific situations. By following rules to accomplish a goal, communication becomes a set of language games.
Speech Act Theory – Types, Components and Examples
Jun 14, 2023 · Understanding Speech Act Theory. Speech act theory, a vital branch of pragmatics, investigates the performative aspects of language. It delves into how our utterances go beyond mere statements of fact or beliefs, enabling us to perform social actions, make requests, give orders, express emotions, and more. By recognizing that speech acts ...
Speech Act Theory - FourWeekMBA
May 29, 2024 · Speech Act Theory, pioneered by J.L. Austin and John Searle, delves into language’s action-performing aspect. It identifies illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. While enhancing communication analysis and pragmatics, it faces criticism for oversimplification and limited contextual consideration. Practical applications span language teaching and legal contexts. What is Speech Act Theory ...
Speech Act Theory in Discourse Analysis
Aug 9, 2024 · What role does Speech Act Theory play in legal discourse? In legal discourse, speech acts are often used to enact decisions and enforce laws. For example, when a judge says, “I sentence you to five years in prison”, the illocutionary act is the legal declaration of a sentence, and the perlocutionary act is the legal obligation for the defendant to serve the sentence, which significantly ...
SPEECH ACT THEORY - Communication Theory
INTRODUCTION The speech act theory considers language as a sort of action rather than a medium to convey and express. The contemporary Speech act theory developed by J. L. Austin a British philosopher of languages, he introduced this theory in 1975 in his well-known book of ‘How do things with words’. Later John Searle brought

What Is The Speech Act Theory: Definition and Examples

Searle's Five Illocutionary Points

Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism

Criticisms of Speech Act Theory

The Function of Sentences

Interactional Aspects of Conversation

StudySmarter Editorial Team

Speech Act Theory Definition

Understanding Speech Act Theory

Austin Speech Act Theory

Components of Speech Acts

Austin and Searle Speech Act Theory

Searle's Expansions on Austin's Theory

Meaning of Speech Acts

Speech Acts Explained

Examples of Speech Acts

Speech Act Theory - Key takeaways

Flashcards in Speech Act Theory 12

Learn faster with the 12 flashcards about Speech Act Theory

Frequently Asked Questions about Speech Act Theory

That was a fantastic start!

Discover learning materials with the free StudySmarter app

About StudySmarter

Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.

Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App

Speech Act Theory | How Words Shape Meaning & Interactions

The Power of Words

Locution, Illocution & Perlocution

Types of Speech Acts

Felicity Conditions

Speech Act Theory & Performativity

Contextual Factors of Speech Act Theory

Pragmatics & Politeness

Criticisms of Speech Act Theory

Literary Theory and Criticism

Speech Act Theory

Share this:

Related Articles

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Notes to Speech Acts

Support SEP

Speech Act Theory – Types, Components and Examples

Introduction

Understanding Speech Act Theory

Exploring Speech Act Components

Locutionary Act

Illocutionary Act

Perlocutionary Act

Types of Speech Acts

Commissives

Expressives

Declarations

Speech Act Theory in Context

Performativity

Principle of Performativity

Contextual Appropriateness

Conventional Understanding

Recognition and Acceptance

Preconditions and Preconditions

Speech Act Felicity

Appropriate Context

Politeness and Manner

Preparatory Conditions

Mutual Recognition

Teaching Applications

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Speech Act Theory

Key Characteristics of Speech Act Theory

Importance of Understanding Speech Act Theory

Analyzing Communication

Enhancing Linguistic Competence

Improving Interpersonal Interactions

Components of Speech Act Theory

1. Locutionary Act

2. Illocutionary Act

3. Perlocutionary Act

4. Speech Act Classification

Implementation Methods for Speech Act Theory

1. Discourse Analysis

2. Pragmatic Analysis