info@wordpar.

com +91 97400 39859

● Home
● About
● Services
● Info
● Contact Us
● View Site In:
Speech Acts – Theory & Use

Speech Acts – Theory & Use

One of the most revolutionary ideas in the development of linguistics as a discipline has
been the departure from a purely linguistic approach towards a pragmatic and functional
study of language.
The emphasis of the Speech Act Theory is on the “act” or the function of a linguistic
expression and not the grapheme, phoneme, morpheme or lexeme. It suggests a
departure from linguistic analysis based on words and sentences and their semantic
meaning to the meaning of “utterances” that originates from the function they fulfil, the
purpose they serve or the intention with which they are used.

The Speech Act Theory has its basis in the idea that language is an instrument which is
put to various uses. In other words, language is used an instrument to achieve various
goals or perform various functions.

The theory is based on and brings to the forefront important facts about language:

1. that language and its components do not have an intrinsic meaning or validity,
but that they are conventions that are agreed upon by a linguistic community that:
2. the meanings are assigned to words or linguistic expressions;
3. the conventions for assigning of meaning to sounds and graphemes are arbitrary
and are not based on any scientific reason or divine source.

Further, this theory makes certain important assertions about the nature of language and
which form the fundamental premises of this and other theories that build on it:

1. Surely we admit that the same linguistic expression can have varied uses and
hence different meaning in different situations and contexts, depending on how
they are used;
 2. Over and above the semantic meaning of an expression, there is a certain
pragmatic meaning that an expression or utterance assumes by virtue of the
intention with which it is used. In other words, the pragmatic meaning is that
meaning that an expression derives by the way it is used or what it is used to
convey.

To elucidate this point, let us take the example of a simple utterance – “Wow!” or “Great
job!” At the face of it, these expressions have a certain semantic meaning which we are
familiar with; they are used to fulfil the function of praising or congratulating someone.
However, the very same words, when used with sarcasm and in a situation that calls for
contempt and disapproval, are used to criticize, castigate and demean the hearer. In
another situation, the same linguistic instruments may be used to mock and ridicule the
listener. We see, therefore, that apart from the hitherto agreed upon semantic meaning
of the words have only a partial role to play in the overall meaning (which we now call
pragmatic) in terms of the function these expressions fulfil.

The words highlighted in the above explanation are what are known as Speech Acts!
They are acts we perform when we say something. They are acts that we perform while
and in using language! Praising, congratulating, criticizing, castigating, demeaning,
mocking and ridiculing are few of the innumerable “acts” we can perform with the help of
language. There is so much we can do with language – the list is endless and limitless.

In the sections that follow, we shall discuss in detail, the various aspects of this theory
and how it is relevant. The theory has opened up a plethora of possibilities in the area of
communication, psychology and philosophy. In the field of linguistics and
communication, it forms the basis of discourse analysis from the point of understanding
what writers and speakers do or try to achieve with their writings and speeches. In the
field of psychology, various theories of interpersonal communication have become
possible with the help of the understanding of speech acts. Finally, from a philosophical
perspective, the theory has formed the basis for language philosophy and borders with
esoteric studies of mysticism.
An important finding of the speech act theory, as discussed above, is that the meaning of
the word is not intrinsic to it, but merely a loose connection between form and content.
Even the arbitrary meanings assigned to linguistic forms are not always the same, and
the meaning depends on and is assumed only when it is used for and towards a certain
communicative function. Further, the theory lends itself to the philosophical questions as
to how language can be understood universally even by members of the same linguistic
group, when it can be interpreted differently, especially for expressions that mean and
refer to more abstract ideas. How can the intended function and intention be correctly
received by the hearer or reader? Doesn’t language accord the same level of reality to all
nouns, be they tangible, intangible or abstract? And in that sense, isn’t language
misleading us to believe in the validity and the reality of the concepts and ideas to be the
same as tangible objects? (Grimminger, Rolf; 1995, 175)

These ideas have led many thinkers in the past to be sceptical about language, and they
have wondered whether language is a reliable instrument of communication at all?

The Speech Act theory is an analysis of language at the meta-level, which means, we
are studying language, i.e., language is the object of our analysis and observation.
Ironically, in order to examine or evaluate language, one must make use of language
itself as the medium analysis! Language becomes both the object as well as the
instrument of observation! The observer is the observed!

Continuing with the theory of speech acts, we speak of certain aspects of speech. Karl
Bühler, a famous German philosopher, in his explication of the Organnon Model of
language has explained that “language is an instrument with which objectives can be
achieved and that the instrument is not separate from the speakers and listeners, or
writers and readers, in performing communicative acts.” (Cutting 2008)

An analysis of language as an instrument for communicative functions reveals that every

speech comprises the following elements:
 1. the utterance per se – the sounds, words, phrases or sentences that are uttered
– (we do not necessarily talk of sentences in this theory, in contrast to traditional
grammars – here every utterance even those without a proper sentence structure
– counts as an utterance as long as it serves a communicative purpose and is in
that sense a communicative instrument
2. the communicative acts or functions that are performed with the help of the
utterance; these are of three kinds:
3. locutionary acts: the act of uttering words, or saying something
4. illocutionary acts: the intention, or intended purpose in uttering the words
5. perlocutionary acts: the impact the uttered words have on the recipient, listener
or reader.

Let us try to understand this concept a bit more closely with the help of an example.
Consider the following utterance (1).

● “You’ll see what I can do.”

Let us now analyze the utterance by enlisting the various acts performed by the speaker.
These are represented by verbs highlighted below:

We can imagine that in uttering the words, the speaker screamed or yelled at the
listener in order to warn and threaten her or him. In doing so, the speaker indirectly and
perhaps unintentionally scares the listener or even coerces her / him into falling in line.
 locutionary act scream, yell

illocutionary act threaten or warn

perlocutionary act scare the listener, or coerce him into submission

In a different context, say given the background of a Hollywood movie when the heroine
finds herself in a dire situation and the hero has given up and asserts that that there is
nothing more to be done, the same utterance (1) above can have completely different
communicative functions:

The heroine evidently mutters to herself, perhaps refusing to give up, and challenging
destiny, and thereby reassures herself and perhaps the hero.

locutionary act mutter

illocutionary act refuse to accept destiny and

 challenge the situation

reassure self and listener;

perlocutionary act

pull oneself together

Having understood the different kinds of acts that we perform by way of uttering
something, we can now move on to analyze the central aspect of the theory. It must be
noted that the central act or the acts that are the main acts performed during the
utterance are the illocutionary acts. These are more potent and relevant than the
perlocutionary ones. All other acts are related to the illocutionary. The illocutionary force
is therefore the focal point of the speech act theory and discourse analysis.

Illocutionary acts are categorised in several ways by different grammarians and linguists.
The most common classification is as below:

Declarations: Expressions that change the word by the very utterance – baptize,
christen, marry someone, declare war etc.

1. Representations or constative acts: Stating facts or what one believes to be

true: e.g. describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, predicting.
2. Commissives: Committing oneself to future action; e.g. promising, offering,
threatening, vowing, refusing, volunteering.
3. Directives: Telling the listener to do something; e.g. commanding, requesting,
inviting, forbidding, suggesting.
 4. Expressives: Stating what one feels; e.g. apologizing, praising, congratulating,
deploring, regretting.

Another traditional classification of illocutionary acts as taught in many schools is also

the classification of sentence types as given below:

1. Interrogative sentences – ones that ask

2. Declarative or assertive sentences (to be distinguished from the declarations of
the previous categorization) – ones that state facts or describe or assert reality or
fantasy (akin to the constative or representative acts in the aforementioned
section)
3. Exclamatory sentences – those that are an expression of surprise, delight, pain
or other extreme emotion.
4. Imperative sentences – ones that ask, direct or instruct some to do something
(akin to directives above).(Pal and Katyal 2013, 2-6)

The focal point of these classifications is varied. Whereas the first classification is from
the pragmatic perspective, the second is really from the structural and grammarian’s
perspective. These two classifications have certain differences and at the same time
certain overlaps. Clearly, whereas the declarations are not to be confused with the
“declarative or assertive” sentences, the representations and constatives are largely akin
to them. Similarly, the “imperatives” are clearly analogous with the “directives” of the first
classification. The “expressives” of the first classification align well with the “exclamatory”
sentence types of the second classification. The first classification lacks the
“interrogative” but has an additional “commissive” category.
Irrespective of the difference in approach and categorization, what is important is to
understand that each sentence has “functions”, “goals”, “objectives” and “effects” that go
beyond the semantic or syntactic meaning. Speech acts signify the essence of an
utterance, the purpose to which communication is put.

Bibliography

1. Cutting, Joan. Pragmatics and Discourse. New York: Routledge, 2008.

2. Grimminger, Rolf;. In Literarische Moderne. Reinbeck: Rohwolt, 1995.
3. Pal, Rajendra, and H.C. Katyal. “Essentials of English Grammar and
Composition.” New Delhi: Sultan Chand, 2013.
4. Renkema, Jan. Introduction to Discourse Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004.
5. Wren, P.C., H. Martin, and N.D.V. Prasada Rao. “High School English Grammar
& Composition.” Bombay: S.Chand & Company, 2008.
6. Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

3,115 views

Comments are closed

View Site in
●
●

●
●

●
 ●

Archives

● March 2022 (1)

 ● February 2022 (3)
● January 2022 (4)
● December 2021 (2)
● October 2021 (1)
● August 2021 (2)
● July 2021 (1)
● June 2021 (2)
● May 2021 (1)
● March 2021 (1)
● February 2021 (1)
● January 2021 (1)
● November 2020 (4)
● October 2020 (1)
● September 2020 (1)
● August 2020 (1)
● July 2020 (2)
● June 2020 (1)
● May 2020 (1)
● April 2020 (1)
● March 2020 (1)
● February 2020 (2)
● January 2020 (3)
● December 2019 (3)
● November 2019 (1)
● September 2019 (1)
● August 2019 (1)
● July 2019 (2)
● June 2019 (1)
● October 2018 (1)
● September 2018 (2)
● February 2018 (1)
● January 2018 (1)
● December 2017 (1)
● November 2017 (1)
● October 2017 (2)

About

WordPar International is a professional language translation services company, with its

head office located at Bangalore. Branch offices are located in Delhi (India) and
Mississauga (Canada). Professional language translation services are offered by the
company to client companies all over the world. The language translation services are
procured from professional and qualified translators from a vast network of translators
spanning the globe.
Recent Posts

Language, Accent, Dialect

Tuesday March 8th, 2022

Back Translation
Tuesday February 22nd, 2022

Don’t Think – The Vicissitudes of the Life of a Conference Interpreter

Tuesday February 15th, 2022

Language Decoded: Die Sprachphilosophie – Language Philosophie

Wednesday February 9th, 2022

Contact Us

India

WordPar International

#41 Basappa Road, Shantinagar

Bangalore – 560027

Phone: +91-80-41145918

Call us (India) + 91-9740039859

 Email: info@wordpar.com

Web: www.wordpar.com

Quick Contact

Copyright © 2020 www.wordpar.com | Made with by Limrasoftech.