The Speech Act Theory

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Speech Act Theory"

Joan Higgins
7 years ago
Views:

1 The Speech Act Theory one of the pillars of modern pragmalinguistics main assumption: language as a tool for doing things the things = language acts originated within the analytical philosophy: John L. Austin ( ) (1962: How to Do Things with Words) John R. Searle (1932) An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (1969) Principal claims: o traditional semantics was based on truth conditions of declaratives o it was unable to explain truthfulness or falsity of non-declaratives: PROPOSITION I am here now. I = argument + am here = predication if matches the reality true if does not match the reality false BUT are these utterances true or false?: Congratulations. Bless you. See you later. I apologize. they are neither true nor false - they are successful or unsuccessful: Congratulations. congratulating Bless you. well-wishing See you later. leavetaking Speach act theory: language use = action which produces speech acts units of communication = utterances performing speech acts Speech Act = basic/minimal unit of linguistic communication Types of speech act (Austin): 1. locutionary act = an act OF saying something phonic act - producing physical sounds propositional act - referring + predicating phonic propositional referring predicating A: I love you. [ai lav ju] I A, you B I + love you M.Ferenčík: Stylistics

2 B: I love you too. [ai lav ju tu:] I B, you A I + love you 2. illocutionary act = act of performing some action IN saying something. illocutionary meaning/force = function of an utterance within conventional system of social interaction. Sentence type Declarative Interrogative Imperative Exclamatory Functional type/discourse ftion/illocutionary act: assertion question order/request exclamation Mismatch of form and function: FORM FUNCTION A day return ticket please. declarative request It s dark in here declarative request Note that SAT is an influential theory. imperative assertion Is it right to torture animals? interrogative assertion What are illocutions of these utterances? After you You can go. Good night I am sorry to hear about your loss. You ll find the stylistics course quite fascinating Johnny swore at me. He told me to piss off. Excuse me. Is this seat free? Did I tell you about... I love you. giving way giving permission leavetaking (not greeting!) condoling recommending complaining accosting request for telling a story consolation, reassurance, pleasing sb., making sb. feel indebted M.Ferenčík: Stylistics

3 SAs typically occur in sequences (cf. Adjacency pairs in CA): Well-formed APs: Greeting Greeting Accusation Denial Protest Apology. Ill-formed APs: *Congratulation Apology *Greeting Denial *Compliment Leavetaking 3.perlocutionary act = results/effects produced BY uttering something IA Fire! A:It s dark in here PA escaping/firing B:Yes, that s right. + turning the lights on TASK: Compare the type of act performed by a human and a parrot when uttering Fire!: human parrot Act: phonic + + Propositional + - Illocutionary + - Perlocutionary +? (if sb. does not recognize it is a parrot) FELICITY CONDITIONS (FC) = conditions which must obtain before a SA can be said to have an intended illocutionary effect Examples: Ordering Accusing - S has authority over hearer - the deed/property is wrong (*You ve just given me 100Euro.) Promising - S must intend to carry out the thing - carrying out the thing will happen in the future - S is in the position to carry out the thing (*I promise the sun will set today.) - S would not do the thing anyway - A wants the thing to happen Cf. Swearing/pledging Naming (christening, baptizing) - A named must not have already that name - S must have a recognized authority in the community M.Ferenčík: Stylistics

4 SINCERITY CONDITIONS = conditions that must be fulfilled if a SA is to be carried out SINCERELY + failure to meet such a condition does not prevent the carrying out of the act. Example: Apologizing - S believes he has done wrong in some way I am sorry I called you names. - performed sincerely when speaker believes he has done wrong - performed insincerely when speaker does not believe he has not done wrong, yet he apologizes DIRECT AND INDIRECT SPEECH ACTS Direct speech act = illocution most directly indicated by a literal reading of the grammatical form and vocabulary. Sentence type Declarative Interrogative Imperative Exclamatory Illocution/functional type (discourse ftion) assertion question order/request exclamations I m afraid we are closing = assertion Indirect speech act = any further illocution associated with an utterance. I L L O C U T I O N Examples: (DIRECT) INDIRECT I m afraid we are closing (assertion) request to leave Can you pass the salt? (asking) requesting That s 3 pounds 50. (informing) requesting Misinterpretation of a speech act: A: I must ask you to leave. declarative request to leave B1: Must you? = literal interpretation as acknowledgement of assertion B2: Ok. I m leaving. = intended interpretation as comply with a request A: I won t forget it. declarative threat/promise B: Is that a threat or a promise? = open to both interpretations (potentially hostile?) M.Ferenčík: Stylistics

5 TYPES OF SPEECH ACT (Searle) 1. commissives: Don t worry, I ll take you home. I ll call the police. 2. declaratives: I now pronounce you man and wife. 3. directives: Come over tonight. 4. expressives: Thanks so much for this. 5. representatives: The weather report promises rain tomorrow. Directives and commissives sensitive with regard to maintaining social fabric they directly involve speakers and listeners they have face-destructing potential hence are relevant in politeness issues they are often made indirect (possibly more polite): Commissive Directive Direct Let me do it. Stop! Let me get you another one. Dismiss! No entry. Indirect Can I help you? I could do with a drink. If you need me, let me know. I would appreciate if you left now. You can shut up. (=asserting) Can I get you something to drink? Can you make me a cup of tea? (= questions S s ability to do st.) (= questioning) Literature: Austin, J.L. 1962: How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Claredon Press. Searle, J.R An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge University Press. Peccei, J.S Pragmatics. London and New York: Routledge. Cutting, J Pragmatics and Discourse. 2 nd edition. London and New York: Routledge. Tárnyiková, L Pragmatics. In P.Štekauer (ed.) Rudiments of English Linguistics. Prešov: Slovacontact. Mey, J Pragmatics. Blackwell. Verschueren, J Understanding Pragmatics. Arnold. Yule, G Pragmatics. OUP. M.Ferenčík: Stylistics

PRAGMATICS 2. ANCA DINU Feb.2012

PRAGMATICS 2. ANCA DINU Feb.2012 PRAGMATICS 2 ANCA DINU Feb.2012 Austin In his seminal book, How to do things with words (1962), Austin stated that one of the age-old enigmas of philosophy - how to bridge the gap between language and