SPEECH ACT THEORY

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background or Rational

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 and Speech Act Theory is and trying to mention and
explain three kinds the meaning of speech acts, I will give an example of these kinds.
Afterwards, I will present the classification of speech acts. Then explain and give it example.
Finally, I will move on the more explanation about illocutionary act and Direct and Indirect
Speech Acts and show two common examples.

B. Purpose

The reasons of us to make this paper are:

Giving the readers explanation about the speech act theory.
The speech act has use and effect in our everyday life.
In everyday communication, a variety of different Speech Acts are used.
Guest Lecture
 II. ANALYSIS

A. Definition of Speech Act

A speech act is a minimal functional unit in human communication. Just as a word (refusal) is
the smallest free form found in language and a morpheme is the smallest unit of language that
carries information about meaning (-al in refuse-al makes it a noun), the basic unit of
communication is a speech act (the speech act of refusal).

A speech act theory is a theory where the effect of an utterance is analyzed in relationship to the
speaker and listeners behavior.

B. The Meaning of Speech Acts

According to Austin's theory (1962), what we say has three kinds of meaning:
1. locutionary meaning
The literal meaning of what is said (communicative act)
It's hot in here.
2. illocutionary meaning
The social function of what is said (speaker intention)
'It's hot in here' could be:
- an indirect request for someone to open the window.
- an indirect refusal to close the window because someone is cold.
- a complaint implying that someone should know better than to keep the windows closed
(expressed emphatically).

3. perlocutionary meaning
The effect of what is said.
'It's hot in here' could result in someone opening the windows.
C. The Classification of Speech Acts

Searle concentrated on Illocutionary Acts and his main aim was to categorize them as detailed as
possible. He invented three major criteria to classify Illocutionary Acts:
a. The first criterion is the Illocutionary Point, which is the main purpose of a Speech Act.

While a description has the function to represent something, a promise has the role of obligating
the speaker to some action to be done in the future.

b. The Direction of Fit describes the intersection between the words and the world. Are the words
describing some items of the world, this is called word to world direction.
 The other way round, the world is supposed to follow the words, for example in a promise or an
order. According to Searle, the Direction of Fit is always a consequence of the Illocutionary
Point.

c. The circumstances of a certain utterance are also a significant criterion.

Here, the psychological state of the speaker is relevant. Does he believe that his words are true?
This is what Searle calls Sincerity Conditions.

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. Representatives or Assertives
Speaker asserts a proposition to be true using verbs such as affirm, believe, conclude, deny,
report.
Example: The sun is shining
Amy affirms that the sun is shining.
2. Directives
Speaker tries to make the hearer do something, ask, beg, challenge, command, dare, invite, insist,
request.
Example: Could you pass me the salt, please?
Amy asks Peter to pass her the salt.
3. Commissives
Speaker commits themselves to a future course of action, promise, pledge, swear, vow,
guarantee.
Example: I will come to your party
Amy promises Peter to come to his party.
4. Expressives
Speaker expresses an attitude to or about a state of affairs apologizes, appreciate, congratulate,
deplore, detest, regret, thank, welcome.
Example: You are always late!
Amy complains that Peter is always late.
5. Declaratives
Speech Acts that create a change in reality.
Example: Hereby the meeting is closed
Amy declares the meeting as closed.

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/Assertive (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) Amys purpose is to describe the world. (Illocutionary Point: DESCRIBE)
B) The words follow the world. (Direction of Fit: WORD TO WORLD)
C) Amy believes what she sees. (Sincerity: BELIEVE)

Amy says: Open the window, please!

This utterance belongs to the category of Directives (2) as we could form the indirect

sentence: Amy wants Peter to open the window.

A) Amy wants Peter to do something. (Illocutionary Point: EFFECT AN ACTION)

B) She wants that the world (in this example Peter) follows her words. (Direction of Fit:

WORLD TO WORD)

C) Amy has the will that something happens. (Sincerity: WILL)

Austin stated that these classifications are unique for all possible Illocutionary Acts. No

matter what Representative or Assertive sentence is uttered, the criteria A) to C) are

unique for all of them. This structured taxonomy was the biggest difference in

comparison to Austin.

D. Illocutionary Acts
The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act. Although there are
numerous opinions as to what 'illocutionary acts' actually are, there are some kinds of acts which
are widely accepted as illocutionary, as for example promising, ordering someone, and
bequeathing.
Following the usage of, for example, John R. Searle, "speech act" is often meant to refer just to
the same thing as the term illocutionary act, which John L. Austin had originally introduced
in How to Do Things with Words (published posthumously in 1962).
According to Austin's preliminary informal description, the idea of an "illocutionary act" can be
captured by emphasizing that "by saying something, we do something", as when someone orders
someone else to go by saying "Go!", or when a minister joins two people in marriage saying, "I
now pronounce you husband and wife." (Austin would eventually define the "illocutionary act"
in a more exact manner.)
An interesting type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the utterance of what Austin
calls performatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence
you to ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit
 cases of performative sentences, the action that the sentence describes (nominating, sentencing,
promising) is performed by the utterance of the sentence itself.

Examples;
Greeting (in saying, "Hi John!", for instance), apologizing ("Sorry for that!"), describing
something ("It is snowing"), asking a question ("Is it snowing?"), making a request and giving an
order ("Could you pass the salt?" and "Drop your weapon or I'll shoot you!"), or making a
promise ("I promise I'll give it back") are typical examples of "speech acts" or "illocutionary
acts".
In saying, "Watch out, the ground is slippery", Mary performs the speech act of warning Peter
to be careful.
In saying, "I will try my best to be at home for dinner", Peter performs the speech act of
promising to be at home in time.
In saying, "Ladies and gentlemen, please give me your attention", Mary requests the audience
to be quiet.
In saying, "Don't go into the water" (a locutionary act with distinct phonetic, syntactic and
semantic features) counts as warning you not to go into the water (an illocutionary act), and if
you heed my warning I have thereby succeeded in persuading you not to go into the water (a
perlocutionary act).
E. 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. Im 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.
 III. CONCLUSION

A. Conclusion

1. There are three meaning of speech acts. They are locutionary meaning, illocutionary meaning
and perlocutionary meaning.
2. The categories of speech acts are representatives or assertive, directives, commissives,
expressives and declaratives.
3. The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the concept of a speech act.
4. 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.
 RULES OF CONVERSATION

1. The maxim of quantity, where one tries to be as informative as one possibly

can, and gives as much information as is needed, and no more.

2. The maxim of quality, where one tries to be truthful, and does not give
information that is false or that is not supported by evidence.

3. The maxim of relation, where one tries to be relevant, and says things that are
pertinent to the discussion.

4. The maxim of manner, when one tries to be as clear, as brief, and as orderly
as one can in what one says, and where one avoids obscurity and ambiguity.

As the maxims stand, there may be an overlap, as regards the length of what
one says, between the maxims of quantity and manner; this overlap can be
explained (partially if not entirely) by thinking of the maxim of quantity
(artificial though this approach may be) in terms of units of information. In
other words, if the listener needs, let us say, five units of information from the
speaker, but gets less, or more than the expected number, then the speaker is
breaking the maxim of quantity. However, if the speaker gives the five required
units of information, but is either too curt or long-winded in conveying them to
the listener, then the maxim of manner is broken. The dividing line however,
may be rather thin or unclear, and there are times when we may say that both
the maxims of quantity and quality are broken by the same factors.