Lesson 5.

0
APPROACHES TO DISCOURSE
Speech Act Theory

REPORTERS:

DE DOMINGO, LIZTHER JOY DARIA, YVONNIE GRACE

BSED-ENGLISH 3A BSED-ENGLISH 3A

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.

Speech act theory is a theory of meaning that holds that the meaning of

linguistic expressions can be explained in terms of the rules governing their use in
performing various speech acts.

Example:
1. Admonishing
2. Asserting
3. Commanding
4. Exclaiming
5. Promising
6. Questioning
7. Requesting
8. Warning

THEORY

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 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 utterance 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 utterance 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.
These utterances have its specific meaning only in relation to it specific context.

What is the importance of speech act theory?

Illocutionary acts are important in communication to express an idea or
assertion which promotes types of actions like stating, questioning, requesting,
commanding, and threatening. These actions are performed by a speaker when
producing an utterance.

Illocutionary acts are not always easy to be categorized when a person

speaks. These actions are performed by a speaker when producing an utterance.

Constatives--“Statements, assertions, and utterances” characterized by truth or

falseness.
Performatives--Statements, assertions, and utterances that do things. The table
below abstracts the performative categories.
 
Category Action Example
Representatives Tell how things are Concluding
Directives Encourage action Requesting
Commit speaker to
Commissive Promising
action
Express
Expressive psychological Thanking
state
Change the state
Declarations Christening
of affairs

For performatives to actually "perform," both speaker and audience must accept
certain assumptions about the speech act.  These assumptions are called felicity
conditions and are often divided into three categories: essential conditions, sincerity
conditions, and preparatory conditions.

 Essential condition--This means that you say what you say, that both speaker
and hearer take the utterance to be performative. 

Example: If you say "I promise to do my homework" to a teacher, both of you

think of that statement as taking the form of a promise. If you quote yourself to
a friend as saying, "I told my teacher 'I promise to do my homework,” the quote
 though identical in its locutionary properties (see below)--fails to promise
because it has become part of a representative act reporting on the promise.

 Sincerity condition--This means that you mean what you say, that both

speaker and hearer take the utterance to be intentional, to accurately represent
the wish of the speaker and the hearer's understanding that the utterance
expresses that wish.  The common expression "in good faith" illustrates the
basic premise of the sincerity condition. 

Example: If you say "I promise to do my homework" to a teacher, both of you

think of that statement as being a promise, as a verbal contract suggesting that
you want to do the homework and possess the requisite capacities to complete
it.

 Preparatory conditions--This means that you can do what you say, that both
speaker and hearer agree that it is situationally appropriate to for you to
perform the speech act.  Don't confuse "can do" with "able to do."  Ability is part
of sincerity.  In this case, "can do" means "allowed to do," to be socially
sanctioned to perform the act. 

Example: If you say "I promise to do my homework" to a teacher, you are a

student in the teacher's class, and the homework has been assigned. If these
conditions were not met, you'd have no homework and, thus, no need to
promise to do it.

Types of Force

There are three types of force typically cited in Speech Act Theory:

 Locutionary force- Referential value (meaning of code)

 Illocutionary force- Performative function (implication of speaker)
 Perlocutionary force- Perceived effect (inference by addressee)

Let's again use our example of the promise. If you say, "I promise to do my
homework" to a teacher, the locutionary force lies in the meaning of the words "I
promise to do my homework" (just as it does in the quotation of the promise to
the friend: their grammatical and semantic content is identical). The
illocutionary force lies in your intent to make a promise; the perlocutionary
force lies in the teacher's acceptance that a promise was made.  In a sentence,
you have said "I promise to do my homework" (locution), you want your teacher
to believe you (illocution), and she does (perlocution).

The graphic below illustrates the relationship of the forces.

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

1. Locutionary act – This is the act of saying something. It has a meaning, and it
creates an understandable utterly to convey or express
2. 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.
3. 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.

CONCLUSION
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.