Speech Act Theory: The Philosophical Controversy
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article is intended to critically assess speech act theory from a philosophical perspective. The theory of speech acts has undeniably enriched meaning theory and provided a fresh view for research in the fields of philosophy of language, meaning, pragmatics, and other related areas, thereby further deepening people's understanding of meaning. Speech act theoretic research has to some extent assumed that the theory is firmly grounded and thus mainly focused on evaluating the theory in terms of its development and taxonomies, exploring its application to literature, comparing/relating it with/to other pragmatic notions such as politeness, implicature, inference, etc., or validating its usefulness in language teaching contexts. Speech act theory, however, is not without its share of flaws, such as the inclination to disregard the intrinsic meaning of language components and also the status of the perlocutionary act, terminological confusion, the blurred constative/performative distinction, and the distinction between locutionary and illocutionary acts, the performative hypothesis and circumstances under which felicity conditions apply.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Akmajian, A. & et al, (2001) Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication. ( 5th ed. ) Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Allan, K. (1997) “Speech Act Classification”. In: Lamarque, P.V. & Asher, R. E. (eds.). Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language, Oxford: Elsvier Science Ltd, pp. 448- 452.
Argyris, C., Putnarn. R. 8 McLain Smith, D. (1985) Action Science. Jossey-Bass, San Franciso
Austin, J. L. (1962/1975) How to Do Things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, J. L. (1956) ‘A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, Vol. 57, pp. 1-30
Austin, J. L. (1963) Performative-Constative. Philosophy and Ordinary Language. Charles, E. Caton (ed.), 22-54. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Austin, J. L. (1971): “Performative-Constative”. In Searle, J. R (ed.), The Philosophy of Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, PP. 13-22.
Bach, Kent & Robert M. Harnish (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press
Ballmer, T. & Brennstuhl, W. (2013). Speech act classification: A study in the lexical analysis of English speech activity verbs (Vol. 8): Springer Science & Business Media.
Bara, Bruno G. (2010) Cognitive Pragmatics: The Mental Processes of Communication. MIT Press
Barrett, R.A. 8 Davis, B.C. (1986) 'Successful Systems Analysts Hone Their Communication Skills.' Data Management, 24(4), 18-21.
Birner, B. J. (2013). Introduction to Pragmatics, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, House, Juliane, & Kasper, Gabrielle (Eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Bogen, D. (1991) The doctrine of literal expression in Searle. Journal of Theory and Social Behavior, 20, 31-63.
Borchmann, Simon (2020) ‘The intentionality of questions – a critique of Searle’s analysis of speech acts’, Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1): 20-55
Bowers, J. 8 Churcher, J. (1988) Local and global structuring of computer mediated communication: developing linguistic perspectives on computer-supported cooperative work in COSMOS. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Suchman, L. (ed.), Portland, OR, 2 6 2 8 September,1988. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 125-139
Chapman, S. (2000) Philosophy for Linguist: An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Charnock, Ross (2009) “Overruling as a speech act: Performativity and normative discourse” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 401-426.
Clark, H. H. & Carlson. T. B. (1991). Speech Acts and Hearer’s Beliefs. Oxford University Press.
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to Indirect Speech Acts. Cognitive Psychology 11: 430-477. Oxford University Press.
Cruse, D. A. (2006). A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.
Culpeper, J. and Haugh, M. (2014). Pragmatics and the English Language. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
De Michelis, G. 8 Grasso, M.A. (1994) Situating conversations within the language/action perspective: the Milan conversation model. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Furuta. R. 8 Neuwirth, C. (eds.), Chapel Hill, NC, 22-26October, 1994. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 89-100
Doerge, Friedrich Christoph (2009) “A scholarly confusion of tongues, or, is promising an Illocutionary Act? Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. Special Issue on Speech Actions, edited by Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka & Maciej Witek. 5.1: 53-68.
Emike, Acheoah John (2013) Towards an Extra-Linguistic Critique of J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature. Vol. 2 No. 5 241-248
Flowerdew, John (1990) “Problems of Speech Act Theory from an Applied Perspective” Language Learning, A Journal of Research in Language Studies: (40), (1) pp. 79-105
Grice, H. P. (1069). Utterer’s meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review, 78(2):147–177.
Grice, H. P. (1967). Meaning. The Philosophical Review, 66(3):377–388.
Grice, H. P. (1968). Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning. Foundations of Language, 4(3):225–242.
Grice, H. P. (1971). Intention and uncertainty. Proceedings of the British Academy, 57:263–279.
Grundy Peter. (2008). Doing Pragmatics. New York: Hodder Education.
Guinan, P.J. (1988) Patterns of Excellence for IS Professionals: An Analysis of Communication Behavior. IClT Press, Washington, DC.
Habermas,J. (1981) The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1. Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
Harnish, Robert M. (2009) “Internalism and externalism in speech act theory”.
Harris, Daniel W. and McKinney, Rachel (2021) The Routledge Handbook of Social and Political Philosophy of Language, pp.1-21.
Holtgraves, T. 2008). “Speaking and Listening”. In: Rickheit, G. and Stohner, H.(eds.), Handbook of Communication Competence. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 207- 224.
Hutton, Chris (2009) Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Huysmans, J. (2011). What’s in an act? On security speech acts and little security nothings. Security dialogue, 42(4-5), 371-383.
Isaac B. H., I.U. Gwuni and T.V. Ogan, (2020) “A Critique of John L. Austin on Speech Acts Theory” International Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies (IJPCS), 7(1):48-51
Janson, Marius A. and Woo, Carson C. (1996) A speech act lexicon: an alternative use of speech act theoy in information systems. Information Systems Journal 6(4):301 – 329
Johnson, M. (1990) The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. University of Chicago Press, USA
Kant, Immanuel (1978/1798) Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, translated by V. L. Dowdell, rev. & ed. by H.H. Rudnick. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Leech, G. (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman
Leilei, ZOU and Chunfang ,WU (2023) ‘A Literature Review on the Research Progress of Speech Act Theory and Its Applications’ International Journal of Linguistics Literature & Translation 6(1):26-32
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Liang, Yi (2024) ‘Study on the Effectiveness of Commitment Speech Act from the Perspective of Force Dynamics Theory -- An Empirical Study on the Discourse of the British Prime Minister’s “Brexit” Political Speech’ International Journal of Education and Humanities. Vol. 12, No. 1:252-257
Littlejohn, S. (2003). Theories of Human Communication (7th ed.). Beijing: Tsinghua University Press.
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. Special Issue on Speech Actions, edited by Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka & Maciej Witek. 5.1: 9-31.
Marmaridou, S. S. (2000) A Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition (John Benjamins Publishing Company, the Netherlands
McHoul, Alec (1996) “Kant’s pragmatics”. Journal of Pragmatics 25: 587-592.
Mo, Q.Y. and Y. Duan (2012) ‘A Cognitive-Linguistic Approach to the Illocutionary Force in Speech Acts’, Foreign Languages Research, No.3, p.21-26.
Pérez-Hernández, Lorena (2020) Speech Acts in English: From Research to Instruction and Textbook Development (Studies in English Language) Cambridge University Press
Reiss, N. (1985) Speech Act Taxonomy. Benjamins Publishing Company, Philadelphia, PA
Auramaki. E., Lehtinen, E. Lyytinen, K. (1988) A speech-act-based office modeling approach. ACM Transactions on Office lnformation Systems, 6, 126-152
Riemer, N. (2010). Introducing Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ross, A.R. (2003) “Being Lucky—Virtual Performative Speech Acts”. Academic Exchange Quarterly, Vol. 7, No.4.
Ruytenbeek, N. (2021). Indirect Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.
Searle J. R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle J. R. (1975) “Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts” In: Gunderson, K. (ed.) Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. vii, pp. 344-369. Reprinted in Searle, J. (1979) Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.
Searle J. R. (1979) Expression and meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle J. R. (1998) “Truth: A Reconsideration of Strawson’s Views.” In: Hahn, L. E. (ed.) The Philosophy of P. F. Strawson, Illinoise: The Library of Living Publishers, pp. 385-401.
Searle J. R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985a) Foundation of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle J. R. & Vanderveken, D. (1985b) Logic, Thought and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle J. R. (1965) “What is a Speech Act?” In Davis, S. (ed.) 1991, Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 254-264
Searle J. R. (2002) Consciousness and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sellars, W. (1954). Some reflections on language games. Philosophy of Science, 21(3):204–228.
Sellars, W. (1969). Language as thought and as communication. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 29(4):506–527.
Suchman, L. (1994) Do categories have politics? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 177-1 90
Taavitsainen, I., & Jucker, A. H. (2007). Speech act verbs and speech acts in the history of English. In Methods in historical pragmatics (pp. 107-138). (Topics in English linguistics; Vol. 52). De Gruyter Mouton.
Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics (The MIT Press, USA
Verschueren (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. Edward Arnold
Voss. K. (1992) Reflexions concerning the paper: investigating information and knowledge gathering methods: a speech act lexicon perspective. Presented at International Federation for Information Processing Conference, WG 8.1 conference lnformation System Concepts: lmproving the Understanding. Alexandria, Egypt
Wierzbicka, Anna (1987) English Speech Act Verbs: A Semantic Dictionary. Academic Press,
Williams, Christopher (2005) Tradition and Change in Legal English. Verbal Constructions in Prescriptive Texts. Bern: Peter Lang.
Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona (2013) From Speech Acts to Speech Actions. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona and Maciej Witek (2009) THE MANY FACES OF SPEECH ACT THEORY. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5.1: 1-8
Wittgenstein, L. (1960). The Blue and Brown Books: Preliminary Studies for the ‘Philosophical Investigations’. Harper Torchbooks, New York, second edition.