PS429 Social and Public Communication PS429 Social and Public Communication Week 4 (25/10/2005) Reading group discussion

Searle, J.R. (1979). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Searle, J.R. (1979), Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pps.1-29.

Some background information…

‘How to do things right with words’, J. Austin (1955, 1962) Intended to attack the positivist assumption that unless a sentence can be verified (because it is about something measurable) it is meaningless. Austin noted that when we use words we are not just saying things but doing things.

Speech Acts Theory Austin (1962) initially distinguished -constantives  statements that describe things. -performatives  statements that do things

Three levels of speech acts’ meaning… Austin subsequently expanded this classification to a. The locutionary act -the actual linguistic content, determinate reference.

b. The illocutionary acts –Conceptual, contractual changes as a result of having said something, e.g. “I bet you..”, “I promise you..” –It can also be seen as what is actually intended, the latent meaning, the ‘real’ meaning. –e.g.”Brr, it is cold in here”  close the window

c. Perlocutionary acts. –The consequences brought about in the audience in terms of actions. –Can involve behaviour and actions “gosh, I’m thirsty” “Are u dancing?”. –Can involve a change in emotions “Didn’t they have it in your size?”

Purpose of Searle’s paper A)To develop a reasoned classification of illocutionary acts. B)To assess how adequate Austin’s classification is. C)To show how the differences of illocutionary acts are expressed in the syntax of the English language.

A) 12 significant dimensions of variation. Difference in the point (or purpose) of the (type of) act. <illocutionary point. Differences in the direction of fit b/w words and the world. Differences in expressed psychological states.  these are the most important dimensions.

12 significant dimensions of variation. Differences in the force or strength with which the illocutionary point is presented. Differences in the status or position of the speaker and the hearer as these bear on the illocutionary force of utterance.

12 significant dimensions of variation. Differences in the way the utterance relates to the interests of the speaker and hearer. Differences in the relations to the rest of the discourse. Differences in propositional content that are determined by illocutionary force indicating devices.

12 significant dimensions of variation. Differences b/w those acts that must always be speech acts and those that can be, but need not be performed as speech acts. Differences b/w those acts that acquire extra- linguistic institutions for their performance and those that do not. Differences b/w those acts where the corresponding illocutionary verb has a performative use and those where it does not. Differences in the style of performance of the illocutionary act.

B) Weaknesses in Austin’s Taxonomy. Austin’s Taxonomy –Verdictives –Exercitives –Comities –Expositive –Behabitives  as a source of discussion.

Weaknesses in Austin’s Taxonomy. 1.There is a persistent confusion b/w verbs and acts 2.Not all the verbs are illocutionary acts. 3.There is too much overlap of the categories 4.Too much heterogeneity within the categories. 5.Many verbs listed in the categories do not satisfy the definition given for the category. 6.There is no consistent principle of classification.

Searle's Taxonomy Assertives Directive Commissives Expressives Declarations

c) Syntactical aspects “If the distinctions marked are of any real significance, they are likely to have various syntactical consequences and I now propose to examine the deep structure of explicit performative sentences in each of the 5 categories” (Searle,1979, p.20).

Most important conclusion “There are not, as Wittgenstein and many others have claimed, an infinite or indefinite number of language games or uses of language. Rather, the illusion of limitless uses of language is engendered by an enormous unclarity about what constitutes the criteria for delimiting one language game or use of language from another…

Most important conclusion …If we adopt illocutionary point as the basic notion on which to classify uses of language, then there are a rather limited number of basic things we do with language:

Most important conclusion -We tell people how things are. -We try to get them to do things -We commit ourselves to doing things -We express our feelings and attitudes -We bring about changes through our utterances. Often, we do more than one of these at once in the same utterance”.

Questions (from group 3) 1. What is the difference between illocutionary acts, illocutionary verbs and illocutionary point? 2. Why does Searle suggest we must separate a taxonomy of illocutionary acts from one of illocutionary verbs?

Questions (from group 3) 3. What does Searle think of Wittgenstein's theory that there are an indefinite number of uses for language?

Questions… Do you agree: -with the critiques of Speech Act Theory? (look at lecture 4, slide 25). -with the criteria Searle uses to classify the illocutionary acts? -with Searle’s criticism on Austin’s taxonomy? -with Searle’s main conclusion (p.29, last §)?

Critiques of Speech Act Theory  More Questions… Is speech act theory meant to be descriptive of explanatory? Categories of speech acts are themselves fuzzy/indeterminate But are intentions to communicate (and the attitudes communicated) more likely to be clear-cut or fuzzy? (From lecture 4, slide 25)