Pragmatics 04

Pragmatics (Lecture on Language Education(Lecture on Language Education and Linguistic Information I)

Speech Acts

D. Y. OshimaSecond Semester, AY 2010‐2011DICOM‐GSID‐Nagoya University

Speech Act TheorySpeech Act Theory

• Initiated by John L Austin developed by JohnInitiated by John L. Austin, developed by John R. Searle.

• saying & doing words & deeds• saying & doing, words & deeds

Performatives vs. constativesPerformatives vs. constatives

• Background: Logical positivism; the keyBackground: Logical positivism; the key function of language is to make true or false statementsstatements.

1. Snow is white.

d• Some sentences do not state:2. Good morning!

3. Is she a vegetarian?

4. Close the window, please.


• The ‘performativity’ can be made explicit byThe performativity can be made explicit by the use of a performative verb and the adverb herebyhereby.

• A performative verb typically (i) has a first‐person singular subject and (ii) is in theperson singular subject, and (ii) is in the simple present tense, the indicative mood, and the active voiceand the active voice.


• Some declaratives – performatives – are not usedSome declaratives performatives are not used to describe a state of affairs but rather to carry out an action.

1. I christen/name this ship the Princess Elizabeth.

2. I now pronounce you man and wife.

3. I sentence you to ten years in prison.

4. I promise to come back by 6pm.

5. I command you to surrender immediately.

6. I apologize for being late.


• Constatives:Constatives:1. It is raining outside.

2. He will come to the party.2. He will come to the party.

3. I promised to come to the party.

• Performatives:Performatives:• Explicit (with a performative verb) 3 I promise to come to the party3. I promise to come to the party.

• Implicit (without a performative verb)4 I’ll come to the party4. I ll come to the party.

Felicity conditions on performatives

• felictity conditions vs truth conditionsfelictity conditions vs. truth conditions

• Certain conditions must be met for a performative to be successful (or ‘felicitous’)performative to be successful (or felicitous ).

• misfire, abuse

Locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary speech acts

• From the constative/performative dichotomyFrom the constative/performative dichotomy to a general theory of speech acts:

1 a (in the middle of an academic talk) Excuse1. a. (in the middle of an academic talk) Excuse me, but I think ...

b h ’ f fb. John’s wife is feminist.

2. I hereby state that John is innocent.

• Constatives are a special case of performatives. p


• Three facets of a speech act:Three facets of a speech act:• locutionary act (phonic, phatic, rhetic): the production of a meaningful linguistic expression

• illocutionary act: the action intended to be performed by a speaker in uttering a linguistic expression, by virtue of the con entional force associated ith itthe conventional force associated with it.

• perlocutionary act: the bringing about of consequences or effects on the audience through the uttering of a linguistic g g gexpression, such consequences or effects being special to the circumstances of the utterance.


• An illocutionary act refers to an action thatAn illocutionary act refers to an action that the speaker accomplishes (or intends to accomplish) in the course of an utterance;accomplish) in the course of an utterance; e.g., accusing, apologizing, blaming, congratulating giving persmission jokingcongratulating, giving persmission, joking, nagging, naming, promising, ordering, refusing swearing and thankingrefusing, swearing, and thanking.

• illocutionary force, illocutionary force indicating device illocutionary act potentialindicating device, illocutionary act potential


• The same locutionary act may have differentThe same locutionary act may have different illocutionary forces in different settings.

1 The gun is loaded1. The gun is loaded.

• The same force may be realized by different f ltypes of clauses.

2. Give me coffee, please.

3. Can I have coffee?

4 I’d like coffee4. I d like coffee.


• Perlocutionary acts/effects (i) are not alwaysPerlocutionary acts/effects (i) are not always intentional, (ii) are not under the speaker’s full‐control (iii) and are less conventionallyfull control, (iii) and are less conventionally tied to linguistic forms.

• consequence by product• consequence, by‐product

Felicity conditions as constitutive rules

• Searle’s view: the felicity conditions are notSearle s view: the felicity conditions are not only ways in which a speech act can be (in)appropriate but they also jointly(in)appropriate, but they also jointly constitute the illocutionary act/force.

• In other words the felicity conditions are the• In other words, the felicity conditions are the constitutive rules, i.e., rules that create the activity itselfactivity itself.

Felicity conditions as constitutive rules

• Searle’s classification of felicity conditions:Searle s classification of felicity conditions: i. propositional content

ii preparatory conditionsii. preparatory conditions

iii. sincerity conditions

i ti l ditiiv. essential conditions

Taxonomy of speech actsTaxonomy of speech acts

• Austin’s five types:Austin s five types:

i. verdictives

ii. exercitives

iii. commissives

iv. behabitatives

v expositivesv. expositives


• Searle’s taxonomy (of illocutionary acts):Searle s taxonomy (of illocutionary acts):

1. illocutionary point (speech act type)

d f f (‘ d ld’ ‘ ld2. direction of fit (‘words to world’ or ‘world to words’)

3. expressed psychological state

4. propositional content p p


• Searle’s five types:Searle s five types:

i. representatives (assertives)

dii. directives

iii. commissives

iv. expressives

v declarations (declaratives)v. declarations (declaratives)


i representatives (assertives)i. representatives (assertives)• asserting, claiming, concluding, reporting,

statingstating, ...

• words‐to‐world

• expresses the speaker’s belief• expresses the speaker s belief

ii. directivesd i d d i• advice, command, order, question, request, ...

• world‐to‐words

• expresses the speaker’s desire


iii commissivesiii. commissives• offer, pledge, promise, refusal, threat, ...

• world to words• world‐to‐words

• expresses the speaker’s intention

i iiv. expressives• apologizing, blaming, congratulating, praising,

h kithanking, ...

• no direction of fit

• expresses the speaker’s emotions


v declarations (declaratives)v. declarations (declaratives)• declaring war, excommunicating, firing from

employment nominating a candidateemployment, nominating a candidate, ...

• two‐way fit

• does not express psychological state• does not express psychological state

• relies on extralinguistic institutions

Direct vs. indirect speech actsDirect vs. indirect speech acts

• Three (arguably) universal clause types:( g y) yp

i. declarative

ii. interrogative

iii. imperative

• Clause types may be differentiated by various morphological, syntactic, and phonological means.

• Different clause types are associated with different illocutionary forces: declaratives & asserting/statingillocutionary forces: declaratives & asserting/stating, interrogatives & questionning, imperatives & ordering/requesting


• direct speech acts: cases where there is a directdirect speech acts: cases where there is a direct match between a clause type and an illocutionary force (including explicit performatives)

• indirect speech acts: cases where there is no direct match.

1. I request you to pass the salt.

2. Pass the salt.

3. Can you pass the salt?

• Indirect speech acts are generally considered to be more polite than direct ones.


• Indirect usages are not rare or marginal.Indirect usages are not rare or marginal.

1. Close the window.

2 I want you to close the window2. I want you to close the window.

3. You ought to close the window.

4 I d if ’d i d l i th i d4. I wonder if you’d mind closing the window.

5. Can you close the window?

6. Would you close the window?

7. Would you mind closing the window?


• How is an indirect speech act analysed?How is an indirect speech act analysed?

1) Searl (1975b): dual illocutionary force

• primary (indirect non‐literal) vs secondary• primary (indirect, non‐literal) vs. secondary (direct, literal)

• disambiguation involves Gricean inferencedisambiguation involves Gricean inference (based on the Co‐operative Principle)

• There is a certain degree of conventionalityThere is a certain degree of conventionality about indirect speech acts (Morgan’s (1978) short‐circuited implicature)


1 a Can you pass the salt?1. a. Can you pass the salt?

b. Are you able to pass the salt?

h h b l h l ?c. Do you have the ability to pass the salt?

2. a. Please pass the salt.

b. Can you please pass the salt?

c ?Are you able to pass the salt please?c. ?Are you able to pass the salt please?

d. ?Do you have the ability to pass the salt please?please?


2) Conversational postulates (Gordon & Lakoff2) Conversational postulates (Gordon & Lakoff 1975)

3) Idiom model (Sadock 1974 among others)3) Idiom model (Sadock 1974, among others)1. Can you pass the salt? – Yes, I can. Here you are.

ld d l h d ? f2. Would you mind closing the window? – Of course I don’t.

AssignmentAssignment

• pp 128‐130: Problems 1 2 3 6 8 & 9pp.128 130: Problems 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 & 9

Pragmatics 04

Documents