Speech act theory

Marina Sbisà
Table of contents

Many problems that we now consider as proper to speech act theory have already been formulated or at least hinted at on other occasions during the history of Western philosophy and linguistics. Philosophers have been concerned with the relation between the meaning of words, the expression of a proposition, and the act of assertion. Aristotle distinguished between the meaning of words and the assertiveness of declarative sentences (Perí Hermeneias 16b 26–30). Philosophers of language, rhetoricians and linguists have been aware of the variety of uses or functions of language. The Greek sophist Protagoras was probably the first to classify modes of discourse which roughly corresponded to kinds of speech acts; the theory of language of the Stoics, which was to become very influential for the development of grammatical studies, distinguished judgements, which alone are true or false, from wh-questions, polar questions, imperatives and expressions of wish, correlating their function with their grammatical form.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Alston, W.P.
2000 Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Apel, K.O.
1991 Is intentionality more basic than linguistic meaning? In E. Lepore & R. Van Gulick (eds.): 31–55.Google Scholar
Asher, N. & A. Lascarides
2001 Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128: 183–228. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Austin, J.L.
1946 Other Minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Suppl. vol. 20.Google Scholar
1961 Philosophical papers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1962 How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish
1979 Linguistic communication and speech acts. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Ballmer, T.T. & W. Brennenstuhl
1981 Speech act classification. Springer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, E.
1966 Problèmes de linguistique générale. Gallimard.Google Scholar
Berlin, I. et al.
1973 Essays on J. L. Austin. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Black, M.
(ed.) 1964 Philosophy in America. Allen & Unwin.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S., J. House & G. Kasper
(eds.) 1989 Cross-cultural pragmatics. Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 1989 Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.): 1–34.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & S.C. Levinson
1978 Universals in language usage. In E.N. Goody (ed.): 56–289.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1987 Politeness. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K.
1934 Sprachtheorie. Fischer.Google Scholar
Cappelen, H. & E. Lepore
2005 Insensitive semantics: a defense of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Blackwell.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, C.
1999 On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 881–909. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cohen, P.R., J. Morgan & M.E. Pollack
(eds.) 1990 Intentions in communication. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cole, P. & J.L. Morgan
(eds.) 1975 Syntax and Semantics 3. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
1994 Sentence typology and the taxonomy of speech acts. In S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.): 460–77.Google Scholar
Davidson, D.
1979 Moods and performances. In A. Margalit (ed.): 9–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Truth and interpretation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duranti, A.
1988 Intention, language and social action in a Samoan context. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 13–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F.H. & R. Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
FetzerA. & C. Meierkord
(eds.) 2002 Rethinking sequentiality. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Frege, G.
1879 Begriffsschrift. Nebert.Google Scholar
1918 Der Gedanke. Eine logische Untersuchung. Beitraege zur Philosophie des deutschen Idealismus 1(2): 58–77.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G.
1979 Pragmatics. Academic Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1981 Speech act assignment. In A.K. Joshi, B.L. Webber & I.A. Sag (eds.): 64–83.Google Scholar
Geis, M.L.
1995 Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goody, E.N.
(ed.) 1978 Questions and politeness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, M.S.
2000 Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics & Philosophy 23: 435–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H.P.
1957 Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66: 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.): 41–58.Google Scholar
1989 Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J.
1981 Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hausendorf, H. & A. Bora
(eds.) in press Analysing citizenship talk John Benjamins DOI logo  BoP
Holmes, J.
1984 Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 345–365. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, R.A. & P.S. Rosenbaum
(eds.) 1970 Readings in English transformational grammar. Ginn.Google Scholar
Joshi, A.K., B.L. Webber & I.A. Sag
(eds.) 1981 Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Katriel, T. & M. Dascal
1989 Speaker’s commitment and involvement in discourse. In Y. Tobin (ed.): 275–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G.N.
1983 Principles of pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Lepore, E. & R. Van Gulick
(eds.) 1991 John Searle and his critics. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levinson, S.C.
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977 Semantics. Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Margalit, A.
(ed.) 1979 Meaning and use. Reidel. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mcgowan, M.-K.
2003 Conversational exercitives and the force of pornography. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31: 155–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Récanati, F.
1981 Les énoncés performatifs. Minuit.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Rosaldo, M.Z.
1982 The things we do with words : Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society 11 : 203–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, J.R.
1970 On declarative sentences. In R.A. Jakobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.): 222–272.Google Scholar
Sbisà, M.
1984 On illocutionary types. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 93–112. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2001 Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1791–1814. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002 Cognition and narrativity in speech act sequences. In A. Fetzer & C. Meierkord (eds.): 71–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
in press) Communicating citizenship in verbal interaction: principles of a speech act oriented discourse analysis. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (eds.) DOI logo
Searle, J.R.
1964 What is a speech act? In M. Black (ed.): 120–136.Google Scholar
1968 Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts. The Philosophical Review 77: 405–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969 Speech acts. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1975 Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (eds.): 59–82.Google Scholar
1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1): 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 Expression and meaning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 Intentionality. Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 535–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. & D. Vanderveken
1985 Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson
1986 Relevance. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Strawson, P.F.
1950 On referring. Mind 59: 320–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1964 Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review 73: 439–460. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1973 Austin and ‘locutionary meaning’. In I. Berlin et al. : 46–68.Google Scholar
Tobin, Y.
(ed.) 1989 From sign to text. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Travis, Ch.
2000 Unshadowed Thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsohatzidis, S.L.
(ed.) 1994 Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Routledge.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z.
1972 Res cogitans. Cornell University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1983 Review article on speech act classification. Language 59: 166–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 What people say they do with words. Ablex.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1989 Language on language. Papers in Pragmatics 3(2).  BoPGoogle Scholar
Warnock, G.J.
1973 Some types of performative utterances. In I. Berlin et al.: 69–89.Google Scholar
Weigand, E.
1994 Discourse, conversation, dialogue. In E. Weigand (ed.): 49–75.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1994 Concepts of dialogue. Niemeyer.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1991 Cross-cultural pragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wittgenstein, L.
1922 Tractatus logico-philosophicus. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1953 Philosophische Untersuchungen/Philosophical investigations. Blackwell.Google Scholar
1958 The Blue and Brown Books. Blackwell.Google Scholar
1969 über Gewissheit/On certainty. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
1976 Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Suhrkamp.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Zaefferer, D.
2001 Deconstructing a classical classification: a typological look at Searle’s concept of illocution type. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 55: 209–225.Google Scholar
Related articles: Analytical philosophy, Artificial intelligence, John L. Austin, émile Benveniste, Clinical pragmatics, Conversational implicature, Conversational logic, Indeterminacy and negotiation, Intentionality, Philosophy of language, Truthfulness