Searle's Speech Acts
Introduction to Searle's Speech Act Theory
John R. Searle, a student of J.L. Austin, further developed and refined Austin’s Speech Act Theory
in his seminal work, Speech Acts (1969). Searle built upon Austin’s foundational ideas while
introducing more precise categorizations and a deeper analysis of the components of speech
acts.
Searle (1969:22) posits that “speaking a language is engaging in a rule-governed form of
behavior.” He argues that speech acts represent the fundamental units of communication in
language, through which actions are performed according to established rules.
Summary:
Searle's Speech Act Theory expands on Austin's ideas, detailing how speech acts function as
fundamental units of communication governed by rules.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
John R. Searle, influenced by J.L. Austin, enhanced the Speech Act Theory in his book Speech
Acts (1969). He clarified and categorized speech acts, emphasizing that using language involves
following specific rules.
Arguments:
Searle argues that speech acts are essential for communication and that language use is a
structured, rule-based behavior.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Speaking a language involves engaging in rule-governed behavior.
2. Speech acts are the basic units of communication.
3. Actions are performed through speech according to established rules.
Conclusion: Speech acts are fundamental to effective communication.
Keypoint(s):
Speech acts are central to language and follow specific rules.
Overall:
Searle's work on Speech Act Theory clarifies how language functions as a structured system of
communication.
Searle’s Categories of Speech Acts
In his 1976 work, Searle identified five types of speech acts that extend Austin’s concept of
illocutionary acts:
1. Representatives/Assertives
2. Directives
3. Commissives
4. Expressives
5. Declaratives
1. Representatives/Assertives
Representatives, or assertives, are statements that convey a description of the world and commit
the speaker to the truth of the proposition. They include assertions, claims, and reports.
Examples:
“The sky is blue.”
“The plane crashed in Afghanistan early yesterday.” (A newspaper reporter performs a
representative act here.)
“Madrid is the capital of Spain.” (The speaker represents a state of affairs.)
2. Directives
Directives are utterances that aim to get the listener to perform an action. They encompass
requests, commands, and suggestions.
Examples:
“Can you pass the salt?”
“Leave this room immediately!”
“Please, close the door!”
3. Commissives
Commissives are acts where the speaker commits to a future action. They include promises,
threats, and offers.
Examples:
“I warn you not to cheat on the exam!”
“I promise to help you.”
4. Expressives
Expressives are acts that convey the speaker's feelings or emotions. They reflect psychological
states such as joy, sorrow, or gratitude.
Examples:
“I am sorry.”
“I wish you a Merry Christmas!”
“Thank you for the lovely gift!”
5. Declaratives
Declaratives are acts that effect a change in the world simply by being stated. These acts are
effective only within an institutional context.
Examples:
“I now pronounce you husband and wife.”
“I christen you John.”
Summary:
Searle categorizes speech acts into five types: representatives, directives, commissives,
expressives, and declaratives.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
In 1976, Searle defined five types of speech acts that build on Austin’s idea of illocutionary acts:
representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives.
Arguments:
Searle argues that speech acts can be classified into specific categories based on their function
and the speaker's intent.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. There are five types of speech acts: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives,
and declaratives.
2. Representatives convey facts or descriptions.
3. Directives request or command action from the listener.
4. Commissives involve commitments to future actions.
5. Expressives communicate the speaker's emotions.
6. Declaratives change the world simply by being stated, within an institutional context.
Conclusion: Understanding these categories helps clarify how language functions in
communication.
Keypoint(s):
Speech acts can be categorized into five types based on their communicative function.
Overall:
Searle's classification of speech acts enhances the understanding of how language is used to
convey meaning and intent.
Summary Table of Speech Acts
Speech Act Definition Example
Assertives The speaker commits to the truth of what “We watched a movie yesterday.”
is asserted.
Directives The speaker attempts to get the listener to “Bring me some hot water.”
do something.
Commissives The speaker commits to a future action. “I promise I will complete the
work by tomorrow.”
Expressives The speaker expresses a psychological “I am sorry for my disrespectful
state. behavior.”
Declarations The speaker brings about a change in the “I now pronounce you husband
world through words. and wife.”
Summary:
Searle categorizes speech acts with definitions and examples in a summary table.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
The summary table outlines different types of speech acts, providing their definitions and
examples.
Arguments:
Searle categorizes speech acts into five types based on their function and the speaker's intention.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Assertives commit the speaker to the truth of their statements.
2. Directives aim to prompt the listener to take action.
3. Commissives involve the speaker's commitment to future actions.
4. Expressives communicate the speaker's emotional state.
5. Declarations effect a change in the world through speech.
Conclusion: Understanding these categories helps clarify the functions of speech acts in
communication.
Keypoint(s):
Speech acts are categorized into five types, each with a specific function.
Overall:
The summary table effectively organizes and defines the different types of speech acts, illustrating
their roles in communication.
Searle's Speech Act Types
According to Searle (1969), there are five types of actions performed through utterances:
1. Representatives/Assertives: These commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed
proposition (e.g., asserting, concluding, reporting).
2. Directives: These attempt to get the listener to do something (e.g., requesting, questioning,
ordering).
3. Commissives: These involve a commitment to future actions (e.g., promising, threatening,
offering).
4. Expressives: These express psychological states (e.g., thanking, apologizing,
congratulating).
5. Declarations: These create immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs (e.g.,
christening, declaring war).
Summary:
Searle identifies five types of speech acts: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives,
and declarations.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
Searle outlines five types of actions that can be performed through speech: representatives,
directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations.
Arguments:
Searle argues that utterances can be classified into five distinct categories based on their purpose
and the actions they perform.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Representatives commit the speaker to the truth of what they express.
2. Directives aim to prompt the listener to take action.
3. Commissives involve a promise or commitment to future actions.
4. Expressives convey the speaker's emotional state.
5. Declarations cause immediate changes in the context or situation.
Conclusion: Understanding these categories helps clarify the various functions of speech
acts.
Keypoint(s):
There are five main types of speech acts, each serving a unique function.
Overall:
Searle's categorization of speech acts provides a framework for understanding how language
functions in conveying meaning and intent.
Indirect Speech Acts
Searle (1975) discusses indirect speech acts, which occur when a speaker’s intended meaning
diverges from the literal meaning of their words. For example, in cases of irony or metaphor, the
utterance’s meaning may differ from its literal interpretation.
Example: Saying, “Very intelligent question,” when one actually perceives it as foolish.
In these instances, a sentence may serve as an illocutionary force indicator for one type of act while
simultaneously performing another.
For example, the question, “Can you pass the salt?” literally asks about the listener's ability but
implies a request for action.
Understanding Indirect Speech Acts
To comprehend indirect speech acts, both the speaker and the listener must share background
information, be able to make inferences, and adhere to cooperative conversational principles (see
Grice 1975).
Sample Case:
Student X: “Let’s go to the movie tonight.”
Student Y: “I have to study for an exam.”
In this exchange, Student X’s suggestion is met with Student Y’s rejection, which is indirectly
indicated by the latter’s statement about studying.
This leads to two questions:
1. How does Student X recognize that Student Y's utterance is a rejection?
2. How does Student Y intend for their utterance to function as a rejection?
The primary illocutionary act in Student Y's response is the rejection, expressed through a
secondary act of stating their need to study. Thus, while the secondary act is literal, the primary act
is not.
Summary:
Searle discusses indirect speech acts, where the intended meaning differs from the literal words,
requiring shared understanding between speaker and listener.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
Searle explains indirect speech acts, which happen when a speaker's intended meaning is
different from the literal interpretation of their words, such as in irony or metaphor.
Arguments:
Indirect speech acts rely on the shared knowledge and inferences of both the speaker and listener
to understand the true meaning behind the words.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Indirect speech acts occur when the speaker's intended meaning differs from the literal
meaning.
2. Understanding these acts requires background knowledge and inference.
3. Both speaker and listener must follow cooperative conversational principles.
Conclusion: Recognition of indirect speech acts is essential for effective communication.
Keypoint(s):
Indirect speech acts involve meanings that go beyond the literal interpretation of words.
Overall:
Searle's exploration of indirect speech acts highlights the complexity of communication,
emphasizing the need for mutual understanding to interpret meanings accurately.
Direct vs. Indirect Speech Acts
Direct Speech Acts
Direct speech acts occur when there is a clear relationship between the utterance's structure and
its function. For example:
“You wear a seat belt.” (declarative)
“Do you wear a seat belt?” (interrogative)
“Wear a seat belt!” (imperative)
Indirect Speech Acts
Indirect speech acts arise when the relationship between an utterance's structure and its function is
not straightforward. For instance, saying “It’s cold outside” may serve as an indirect request to
close the door rather than simply stating the temperature.
Summary of Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
Any speech act can be classified as either direct or indirect, depending on the speaker’s intent.
Direct Speech Acts: The locutionary act matches the illocutionary act directly, with the
intention clearly expressed.
Indirect Speech Acts: There is no direct correlation between the structure and the function of
the utterance, and the intention is implied rather than stated.
Indirect speech acts may involve statements used to perform actions like requests or apologies
beyond their literal meanings.
Examples:
“Do you have some money?” may imply a request for payment.
“You parked the car on the road” could suggest removing the car.
“The door is open” might indirectly request someone to close it.
Misunderstanding Indirect Speech Acts
A failure to grasp an indirect speech act can lead to social awkwardness. For instance, if someone
asks, “Please, do you know the way to the post office?” and receives a simple “yes” in response,
the speaker may feel embarrassed due to the unfulfilled request.
Indirect speech acts can be complex, as the intended meaning does not align with the literal
meaning of the utterance. Despite this, listeners often navigate these complexities with relative
ease.
Summary:
The text distinguishes between direct and indirect speech acts, highlighting their structural
relationships and implications.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
Direct speech acts have a clear connection between what is said and its function, while indirect
speech acts have a more complex relationship where the meaning is implied rather than stated.
Arguments:
Understanding the difference between direct and indirect speech acts is essential for effective
communication and avoiding misunderstandings.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Direct speech acts have a clear relationship between structure and function.
2. Indirect speech acts lack a straightforward connection, with implied meanings.
3. Misunderstanding indirect speech acts can lead to social awkwardness.
Conclusion: Recognizing these differences is crucial for effective communication.
Keypoint(s):
Direct speech acts are straightforward, while indirect speech acts involve implied meanings.
Overall:
The text clarifies the distinctions between direct and indirect speech acts, emphasizing the
importance of understanding these concepts to communicate effectively.
Conclusion
Searle emphasizes that the same locution can be used to convey different illocutionary forces, and
vice versa. For instance, the phrase “Want coffee?” could function as a question, a request, or an
offer.
In summary, direct speech acts are those where structure and function align, while indirect speech
acts involve a more nuanced relationship. Ultimately, the effectiveness of speech acts hinges on
the communicative context, including the setting, participants, and social dynamics involved.
Summary:
Searle discusses how the same phrase can serve different functions in communication and
distinguishes between direct and indirect speech acts.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
Searle highlights that the same words can express different meanings, and he differentiates
between direct speech acts, where structure matches function, and indirect speech acts, which
have a more complex relationship.
Arguments:
The effectiveness of speech acts depends on context, including the setting and social dynamics,
and understanding this helps clarify communication.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. The same phrase can convey multiple illocutionary forces.
2. Direct speech acts have a clear alignment between structure and function.
3. Indirect speech acts involve a more nuanced relationship between meaning and intent.
4. The context of communication significantly affects the effectiveness of speech acts.
Conclusion: Understanding these factors enhances effective communication.
Keypoint(s):
The same locution can express different meanings based on context.
Overall:
Searle's conclusion emphasizes the importance of context in understanding how speech acts
function and the varying meanings that can arise from the same utterance.
The Form and Function Problem
One unresolved issue in linguistics is the relationship between the formal characteristics of an
utterance and the context or situation that informs its function or illocutionary force. Mismatches
between form and function can pose significant challenges for language learners.
Based on the structure defined by the three basic sentence types in English that correspond to
three general communicative functions (Yule, 1996:54):
Sentence Type Communicative Function
You wear a seat belt. Declarative
Do you wear a seat belt? Interrogative
Wear a seat belt! Imperative
While Austin's and Searle's speech act theories have faced considerable criticism, their
contributions cannot be overlooked as they significantly advance our understanding of how
language operates within user contexts and situations. For instance, indirect speech acts illustrate
the various ways speakers convey their intentions without being overly direct or offensive. This
highlights the creative use of language by interactants to achieve specific goals, encapsulated in
illocutionary speech acts.
Summary:
The text discusses the relationship between the form of utterances and their communicative
function, highlighting challenges for language learners.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
The text addresses the issue of how the structure of an utterance relates to its intended function,
noting that mismatches can create difficulties for language learners.
Arguments:
Understanding the connection between sentence structure and communicative function is
essential, and indirect speech acts show how speakers can express intentions creatively.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. There is a relationship between the form of an utterance and its communicative function.
2. Mismatches between form and function can be challenging for language learners.
3. Different sentence types correspond to specific functions (declarative, interrogative,
imperative).
4. Austin's and Searle's theories, despite criticism, enhance our understanding of language use
in context.
5. Indirect speech acts demonstrate how speakers convey intentions without being direct.
Conclusion: Understanding these relationships improves communication and language
learning.
Keypoint(s):
The relationship between utterance form and function is crucial for effective communication.
Overall:
The text highlights the importance of understanding how utterance structure and context affect
language use, particularly for language learners facing form-function mismatches.
Limitations of Speech Act Theory
1. Levinson (1982) points out a significant practical limitation: when examining a transcribed
conversation, it becomes evident that assigning speech acts is not a straightforward, non-
arbitrary task. The difficulty in identifying speech acts should not discourage analysis but
rather prompt researchers to acknowledge that the conventional classification of speech acts
into distinct categories, such as requests or promises, may be problematic.
2. From the speaker's perspective, multiple sentences (or syntactic chunks) can represent a
single act, while a single utterance may perform several simultaneous acts. For example,
when a husband says to his wife, “Hey, Michael, you've passed the exam,” he may be
simultaneously asserting, congratulating, apologizing, etc. Currently, speech act theory does
not provide discourse analysts with a clear method for determining how specific linguistic
elements, in particular conversational contexts, convey intended meanings.
As certain indirect speech acts are frequently used, they have become more direct over time,
losing their original indirectness. Examples of conventional indirect acts include:
1. “I hope you will do it.”
2. “You can make your plan longer.”
3. “Hadn’t you better go now?”
These examples represent commands that are disguised and expressed more politely.
Searle concludes that speakers use language in either idiomatic or unidiomatic ways. Speaking
idiomatically means using language that is clear and understood within a particular linguistic
community. Searle (1975, p. 74) suggests an additional conversational maxim: "Speak
idiomatically unless there is a special reason not to." He further notes that when someone speaks
unidiomatically, hearers may assume there is a specific reason for it, with politeness being a
primary, though not the sole, motivation for using indirect forms.
Summary:
The text discusses the limitations of speech act theory, highlighting challenges in classifying
speech acts and the evolution of indirect speech acts.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
The text outlines the challenges of speech act theory, noting that identifying speech acts in
conversation is complex and that indirect speech acts can become more direct over time.
Arguments:
Speech act theory faces practical limitations in categorizing speech acts, and the use of indirect
speech acts often changes, complicating their analysis.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Assigning speech acts in transcribed conversations is complex and not straightforward.
2. Conventional classifications of speech acts may be problematic.
3. Multiple sentences can represent one act, and a single utterance can perform several acts
simultaneously.
4. Indirect speech acts can become more direct over time.
5. Searle suggests the importance of speaking idiomatically within a linguistic community.
Conclusion: Understanding the limitations and complexities of speech act theory can
enhance analysis and communication.
Keypoint(s):
Identifying and classifying speech acts is complex and sometimes problematic.
Overall:
The text emphasizes the limitations of speech act theory, particularly in the context of real
conversations and the evolution of language use, highlighting the need for more nuanced analysis.
Sociolinguistics
Discuss the determinants that influence a speaker's choice of language varieties.
Explain the concept of a speech community.
Differentiate between a language and a dialect.
Identify the communicative necessities that lead to the development of pidgins and discuss
these needs.
Besides pronunciation patterns like Received Pronunciation (RP), state other criteria that
indicate Standard English usage.
Summary:
The text outlines key topics in sociolinguistics, including language choice, speech communities,
language vs. dialect, pidgin development, and criteria for Standard English.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
The text highlights important aspects of sociolinguistics, focusing on factors influencing language
choice, the definition of speech communities, the difference between languages and dialects, the
emergence of pidgins, and criteria for Standard English.
Arguments:
Sociolinguistics examines various factors that affect language use, the concept of speech
communities, and the distinctions between languages and dialects, as well as the development of
pidgins and standards in English.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Language variety choices are influenced by various determinants.
2. A speech community is defined by shared language use.
3. There is a significant distinction between a language and a dialect.
4. Pidgins develop to meet specific communicative needs.
5. Criteria for Standard English extend beyond pronunciation patterns like RP.
Conclusion: Understanding these concepts is essential for analyzing language in social
contexts.
Keypoint(s):
Sociolinguistics explores language choice, speech communities, and the distinctions between
languages and dialects.
Overall:
The text presents foundational topics in sociolinguistics, emphasizing the social factors that shape
language use and the criteria for distinguishing between language varieties.
Pragmatics
Define the term “direct speech act” and provide examples. Additionally, give other examples
of utterances that illustrate how we perform acts through speech.
Explain how indirect speech acts function in everyday communication, supporting your
explanation with examples.
Differentiate between Austin's speech acts and Searle’s acts, providing illustrations for clarity.
Distinguish between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts with relevant examples.
Summary:
The text outlines key topics in pragmatics, including direct and indirect speech acts, the distinction
between Austin's and Searle's speech acts, and the types of speech acts.
Rephrase the text for clarity:
The text covers important aspects of pragmatics, focusing on defining direct speech acts,
explaining indirect speech acts, differentiating between Austin's and Searle's approaches, and
distinguishing types of speech acts.
Arguments:
Pragmatics examines how speech acts function in communication, including the differences
between direct and indirect acts, and the classifications of speech acts proposed by Austin and
Searle.
premises(s) and conclusion:
1. Direct speech acts are defined and illustrated with examples.
2. Indirect speech acts play a significant role in everyday communication, with supportive
examples.
3. There are differences between Austin's and Searle’s speech act theories, with illustrations for
clarity.
4. Speech acts can be categorized into locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts with
relevant examples.
Conclusion: Understanding these concepts is essential for analyzing communication in
pragmatics.
Keypoint(s):
Pragmatics studies how speech acts operate in communication, including direct and indirect
forms.
Overall:
The text highlights fundamental concepts in pragmatics, focusing on the nature of speech acts and
their classifications in communication.
