PS429 Social and Public Communication

1
PS429 Social and Public Communication

• Week 4 (25/10/2005)
• Reading group discussion

2

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

3
Some background information
4
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.

5
Speech Acts Theory

• Austin (1962) initially distinguished
• -constantives ?statements that describe things.
• -performatives ?statements that do things

6
Three levels of speech acts meaning

• Austin subsequently expanded this classification
  to
• a. The locutionary act
• -the actual linguistic content, determinate
• reference.

7

• 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

8

• c. Perlocutionary acts.
• The consequences brought about in the audience in
  terms of actions.
• Can involve behaviour and actions
• gosh, Im thirsty
• Are u dancing?.
• Can involve a change in emotions
• Didnt they have it in your size?

9
Purpose of Searles paper

1. To develop a reasoned classification of
   illocutionary acts.
2. To assess how adequate Austins classification
   is.
3. To show how the differences of illocutionary acts
   are expressed in the syntax of the English
   language.

10
A) 12 significant dimensions of variation.

• Difference in the point (or purpose) of the (type
  of) act. ltillocutionary point.
• Differences in the direction of fit b/w words and
  the world. ltdirection of fitgt
• Differences in expressed psychological states.
  ltsincerity conditiongt
• ?these are the most important dimensions.

11
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
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.

13
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.

14
B) Weaknesses in Austins Taxonomy.

• Austins Taxonomy
• Verdictives
• Exercitives
• Comities
• Expositive
• Behabitives
• ?as a source of discussion.

15
Weaknesses in Austins 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.

16
Searle's Taxonomy

• Assertives
• Directive
• Commissives
• Expressives
• Declarations

17
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).

18
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

19
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

20
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.

21
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?

22
Questions (from group 3)

• 3. What does Searle think of Wittgenstein's
  theory that there are an indefinite number of
  uses for language?

23
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 Searles criticism on Austins taxonomy?
• -with Searles main conclusion (p.29, last )?

24
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)