word image
Term paper

Speech Act Theory - Semantics Seminar

3.129 Words / ~13 pages sternsternsternsternstern_0.75 Author Leonie N. in Jan. 2011
<
>
Download
Genre/category

Term paper
Applied Linguistics

University, School

Universität zu Köln

Grade, Teacher, Year

2009

Author / Copyright
Leonie N. ©
Metadata
Price 4.00
Format: pdf
Size: 0.19 Mb
Without copy protection
Rating
sternsternsternsternstern_0.75
ID# 3816







Speech Act – Theory

Term Paper - Linguistics, B-Seminar „Semantics“


1. Introduction 3
2. Speech Acts – Essentials on the Topic 3
3. Austin’s Theory 4
3.1 Constatives and Performatives 5
3.2 Performative Sentences 5
3.3 Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts 7
3.4 Criticism of Austin’s Theory 7
4. Searle’s Theory 8
4.1 Classification of Speech Acts 8
4.2. Criticism of Searle’s Theory 11
5. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts 11
5.1 Everyday Indirect Speech Acts and their Effects 12
6. Conclusion 13
7. Bibliography 14
8. Disclaimer 15

1. Introduction

In this term paper, I want to point out the basic issues of Speech Act Theory. After giving a general explanation of what Speech Act Theoryis and trying to range it in the linguistic field of Semantics, I will give an overview about the theory of John Austin. Afterwards, I will present the theory of John Searle who followed Austin and refined his ideas.

Finally, I will move on to Indirect Speech Acts and show how they effect our everyday life on the basis of two common examples.


2. Speech Acts – Essentials on the Topic

The general way of using language is to make a declarative statement:

Amy says: “The car is green.”

In this sentence, Amy defines the colour of the car. The statement can be evaluated as true or false.

But there is more about language than declarative statements. Most of the time, people are not aware of the fact in how many ways words can be used and how Speech Acts have an impact on everybody’s life. ASpeech Actis an interaction of several factors simultaneously: It depends on what the speaker says, how he acts while saying it and his intention to affect the audience.

The usual statement plays a minor role in voice communication. When people talk to each other, it is rather about asking questions, making suggestions, greeting or thanking somebody. The following example will show, that conversation is more than just an exchange of declarative statements:

Amy says: “The door is over there!”

Now think about these two possible situations:

a)    Amy had a terrible conflict with her boyfriend Peter.

b)    Amy sees an old women, vainly trying to leave a building because almost all doors are already closed.

The two different situations give the sentence oppositional possibilities of interpretation. In case a), it is to be assumed that Amy doesn’t want to point out to Peter where the door is located. It is rather a command to leave the room. In opposition to that, in case b), Amy probably wants to help. She gives advice to the old women to find the exit.

We see that the function of an utterance depends on the circumstances of a situation. Communicating is more than pronouncing words and using appropiate grammar. Speech Act Theoryis the study of what lies behind utterances. Ranging this term in the linguistic field of Semantics is problematic since Semantics deals with the meaning of words and sentences.

As Pragmatics is defined as the study of meaning in context, Speech Act Theory is usually ranged in this linguistic subfield. Linguists on that area try to focus on the different Speech Acts, put them into general classification and to explain them. The most important linguists on that field were Joh.....[read full text]

Download Speech Act Theory - Semantics Seminar
• Click on download for the complete and text
• This is a sharing plattform for papers
Upload your paper and receive this one for free
• Or you can buy simply this text
This paragraph is not visible in the preview.
Please downloadthe paper.

As already mentioned, Austin describes performative sentences as an interaction between doing and saying. It is a conventional procedure, that is depending on four different conditions:

1)    Content Condition: Are the words appropiate in this particular situation?

2)    Preparatory Condition: Does the speaker have the authoritiy to utter this sentence?

3)    Sincerity Condition: Restriction towards the speaker’s psychological state.

4)    Essential Condition: Criterion of classifying the Speech Act Type.

In the following example, Amy undergoes two acts simultaneously. Firstly, she undergoes the physical act of speaking. Secondly, she performes the act of giving a promise.

Amy says: “I promise to give you 500 €!”

To evaluate this sentence as felicitous or infelicitous, the mentioned four main aspects have to be examined. In what cases can this promise be accurate?

1)    In the first place, the speaker must utter words to the effect that he is putting himself under obligation to do something. This criterion is fullfilled as Amy says words that express a promise.

2)    Is Amy really able to give 500 € to somebody else? Since Amy is a fictional person, the question can not be answered at this point. But we see, that the promise can only be accurate, if Amy really has the financial means.

3)    As the example has no context, the third criterion can not be defined as fullfilled or not. But again, we can imagine in what situation this utterance can be adequate. If Amy is begging Peter to accompany her to a ballroom dance an Peter hates dancing, we see that this utterance is probably not meant seriously and is therefore infelicitous.

4)    Classifying the Speech Act type here is easy, as a Speech Act Verb is covered in the sentence. Amy says “I promise (…)”, so it becomes clear, that the Speech Act can be defined as the act of promising.


3.3 Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts

According to Austin, the simple act of saying something is the Locutionary Act, whereas an Illocutionary Act describes what action lies behind the utterance. Austin defined these acts more precisely. A Locutionary Act can be split up in three subcategories. Imagine that Amy says to Peter “Is that an oak tree?” and Peter replies “Yes”. Here, three different acts happen at the same time which are interdependent.

1)    The Phonetic Act: At first, Amy’s body has produced certain sounds. Austin calls this body .....

This paragraph is not visible in the preview.
Please downloadthe paper.

In this situation, it is clear that the utterance functions as a warning, but it could not be used as a warning in general. So there is room for critisism because it not possible to draw a clear line here and Austin’s classification can not be used conventionally.


4. Searle’s Theory

The American philosopher John Searle followed Austin, developed and changed his theory. He concentrated on Illocutionary Acts and arranged a taxonomy for them. In contrast to Austin, he split the Illocutionary Speech Act into four subcategories and therefore suggested to change Austin’s theory. Searle states that a Locutionary Act is always inside an illocutionary act, so the two can not be examined apart from each other.

As a consequence, the term Locutionary Act for itself is redundant. Searle invented new terminology. According to him, a Speech Act contains of four different parts:

1)    The “Utterance Act” is the Phonetic and Rhetic act together. It is made up of an utterance based on phonological and grammatical rules.

2)    The “Propositional Act”. It consists of two acts, the Reference Act and a Predicate Act. The Reference Act corresponds to a certain object of the world, for example the proper name “Amy”. In the Predicate Act, the speaker defines the referent by properties, for example “Amy is beautiful.”.

3)    The “Illocutionary Act”. Searle adopted this term from Austin. As already mentioned, a Illocutionary Act is an uttera.....

This paragraph is not visible in the preview.
Please downloadthe paper.

Searle claims that he has invented a taxonomy that reflects what happens when a speech act is performed sufficiently. He has set up the following five categories of Illocutionary Speech Acts. To find out, what category a single utterance belongs to, we can form an indirect sentence and look at the verb (Speech Act Verb) that is used.

1)    Assertives or Representatives are utterances that mainly describe the world. Verbs that belong to this category are “to describe”, “to say” or “to tell”. Example: “The pullover is red.” -> Amy says that the pullover is red.

2)    Directives are utterances that try to get people to do something. Verbs to classify these sentences are for example “to order”, “to command” or “to ask somebody to to something” Example: “Could you pass me the salt, please?” -> Amy asks Peter to pass her the salt.

3)    Commissives obligate a speaker to an action in the future. “to promise” or “to threat” are verbs that classify this type of Speech Act. Example: “I will come to your party” -> Amy promises Peter to come to his party.

4)    Expressives express the speaker’s attitude and feelings. They offer a slight insight in the psychological state of the speaker. Verbs belonging to this category are “to excuse”, “to thank” or “to complain”. Example: “You are always late!” -> Amy complains that Peter is always late.

5)    Declaratives are Speech Acts that create a change in reality. To define this type we use the verbs “to baptise”, “to wed” or “to declare”. Example: “Hereby the meeting is closed” -> Amy declares the meeting as closed. Obviously, this category is comparable to the Performative Sentences in Austin’s Theory.

Having mentioned these five different types of utterances, it is possible to combine these two classifications (A-C and 1 – 5).

Amy says: “The sun is shining”

This sentence belongs to the category of Representatives/Assertives (1) as Amy describes the world. To go into more detail, I will examine this utterance on the basis of the three classifications of Speech Acts.

A)   Amy’s purpose is to describe the world. (Illoc.....

This paragraph is not visible in the preview.
Please downloadthe paper.

The most obvious one is the problem of overlapping categories. For example the duplication of direction of fit in directives and commissives. Both have ‘world to word’ Direction of Fit, as in both types the speaker wants that something happens. Therefore, a complete classification that can be used conventially was not set up by Searle as well. As a consequence, other linguists continued the investigation of Speech Acts.


5. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts

In everyday communication, a variety of different Speech Acts are used. Without being linguists, usually people are able understand what the speaker wants to say. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts are interchanged unconsciously as the following examples will show:

What time is it?” vs. “Could you tell me what time it is?”

Both utterances are interrogative sentences which have the same function. They are questions that request the listener to tell the speaker the time. But as we examine this utterances in more detail, is becomes clear that they are different on the level of Speech Act. While the first utterance is a direct question, the second one is structured as a question that should usually be answered with “Yes” or “No”.

The term “Could you” in general refers to the ability of the listener to tell the time. Still, nobody would answer “Yes” and go away.

“Turn on the heating!” vs. “I’m freezing to death!”

We would usually understand both sentences as directives. But again they vary in terms of directness. Obviously, the first utterance is an imperative sentence. Somebody is commanded to turn on the heating. The second example itself is a declarative sentence. But the Illocutionary Force here is the same as in the first sentence. The speaker wants that the oponent reacts because he gets the information that he or she is freezing.

The reaction would be the same – namely .....

This paragraph is not visible in the preview.
Please downloadthe paper.

The idea and therefore the Perlocutionary Force behind this is, that many people come to that restaurant because they think that it is cheaper.


6. Conclusion

In this term paper, I wanted to point out the generall issues of Speech Act Theory. Actually, Austin and Searle are not the only linguists that dealt with this topic and the examinations on that field are still not at the end. I wanted to show that Speech Acts are present in our life all the time and that we make use of them in our everyday communication.


7. Bibliography

Primary Sources:

KORTMANN, BERND. 2005. English Linguistic Essentials. Berlin: Cornelsen.

LANIGAN, RICHARD L 1977. Speech Act Phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

SAEED, JOHN I 2003. Semantics – Second Edition. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Secondary Sources:

ADEGBIJA, EFUROSIBINA E 1982. A Speech Act Analysis of Consumer Advertisments. Indiana University: University Microfilms International.

SCHEPPE, WOLFGANG A 1982. Sprechakttheorie und Sprachphilosophie – Eine Kritik der Theorie J. L. Austins. Mün.....



Swap your papers