Speech act - Wikipedia

In the philosophy of language and linguistics, speech act is something expressed by an individual that not only presents information but performs an action ... Speechact FromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia Jumptonavigation Jumptosearch Utterancethatservesaperformativefunction FortheU.S.law,seeSPEECHAct. Inthephilosophyoflanguageandlinguistics,speechactissomethingexpressedbyanindividualthatnotonlypresentsinformationbutperformsanactionaswell.[1]Forexample,thephrase"Iwouldlikethekimchi;couldyoupleasepassittome?"isconsideredaspeechactasitexpressesthespeaker'sdesiretoacquirethekimchi,aswellaspresentingarequestthatsomeonepassthekimchitothem.AccordingtoKentBach,"almostanyspeechactisreallytheperformanceofseveralactsatonce,distinguishedbydifferentaspectsofthespeaker'sintention:thereistheactofsayingsomething,whatonedoesinsayingit,suchasrequestingorpromising,andhowoneistryingtoaffectone'saudience".[2]ThecontemporaryuseofthetermgoesbacktoJ.L.Austin'sdevelopmentofperformativeutterancesandhistheoryoflocutionary,illocutionary,andperlocutionaryacts.Speechactsservetheirfunctiononcetheyaresaidorcommunicated.Thesearecommonlytakentoincludeactssuchasapologizing,promising,ordering,answering,requesting,complaining,warning,inviting,refusing,andcongratulating.[3] Contents 1History 2Overview 2.1Illocutionaryacts 2.2Perlocutionaryacts 2.3Performativespeechacts 2.4Indirectspeechacts 3Examples 4Inlanguagedevelopment 5Formalization 6Incomputerscience 6.1Conversationforaction 6.2Rules 6.3Inmultiagentuniverses 6.4Otherusesintechnology 7Inpoliticalscience 8Ineconomicsociology 9Seealso 10Notes 11Bibliography 12Furtherreading 13Externallinks History[edit] Formuchofthehistoryofthepositivistphilosophyoflanguage,languagewasviewedprimarilyasawayofmakingfactualassertions,andtheotherusesoflanguagetendedtobeignored,asAustinstatesatthebeginningofLecture1,"Itwasfortoolongtheassumptionofphilosophersthatthebusinessofa'statement'canonlybeto'describe'somestateofaffairs,orto'statesomefact',whichitmustdoeithertrulyorfalsely."[1]: 1 Wittgensteincameupwiththeideaof"don'taskforthemeaning,askfortheuse,"showinglanguageasanewvehicleforsocialactivity.[4]SpeechacttheoryhailsfromWittgenstein'sphilosophicaltheories.Wittgensteinbelievedmeaningderivesfrompragmatictradition,demonstratingtheimportanceofhowlanguageisusedtoaccomplishobjectiveswithinspecificsituations.Byfollowingrulestoaccomplishagoal,communicationbecomesasetoflanguagegames.Thus,utterancesdomorethanreflectameaning,theyarewordsdesignedtogetthingsdone.[5]TheworkofJ.L.Austin,particularlyhisHowtoDoThingswithWords,ledphilosopherstopaymoreattentiontothenon-declarativeusesoflanguage.Theterminologyheintroduced,especiallythenotions"locutionaryact","illocutionaryact",and"perlocutionaryact",occupiedanimportantroleinwhatwasthentobecomethe"studyofspeechacts".Allofthesethreeacts,butespeciallythe"illocutionaryact",arenowadayscommonlyclassifiedas"speechacts". Austinwasbynomeansthefirstonetodealwithwhatonecouldcall"speechacts"inawidersense.Theterm'socialact'andsomeofthetheoryofthistypeoflinguisticactionaretobefoundinthefifthofThomasReid'sEssaysontheActivePowersoftheHumanMind(1788,chapterVI,OftheNatureofaContract).[6] AdolfReinach(1883–1917)[7]andStanislavŠkrabec(1844–1918)[8]havebeenbothindependentlycreditedwithafairlycomprehensiveaccountofsocialactsasperformativeutterancesdatingto1913,longbeforeAustinandSearle. Theterm"SpeechAct"hadalsobeenalreadyusedbyKarlBühler.[9][10] Overview[edit] Mainarticles:locutionaryact,illocutionaryact,perlocutionaryact,andmetalocutionaryact Speechactscanbeanalysedonmultiplelevels: Alocutionaryact:theperformanceofanutterance:theactualutteranceanditsapparentmeaning,comprisinganyandallofitsverbal,social,andrhetoricalmeanings,allofwhichcorrespondtotheverbal,syntacticandsemanticaspectsofanymeaningfulutterance; anillocutionaryact:theactiveresultoftheimpliedrequestormeaningpresentedbythelocutionaryact.Forexample,ifthelocutionaryactinaninteractionisthequestion"Isthereanysalt?"theimpliedillocutionaryrequestis"Cansomeonepassthesalttome?"; andundercertainconditionsafurtherperlocutionaryact:theactualeffectofthelocutionaryandillocutionaryacts,suchaspersuading,convincing,scaring,enlightening,inspiring,orotherwisegettingsomeonetodoorrealizesomething,whetherintendedornot.[1] Additionally,ametalocutionaryactcategorizesspeechactsthatrefertotheformsandfunctionsofthediscourseitselfratherthancontinuingthesubstantivedevelopmentofthediscourse,ortotheconfigurationalfunctionsofprosodyandpunctuation.[11]: 88–93  Illocutionaryacts[edit] Theconceptofanillocutionaryactiscentraltotheconceptofaspeechact.Althoughthereareseveralscholarlyopinionsregardinghowtodefine'illocutionaryacts',therearesomekindsofactswhicharewidelyacceptedasillocutionary.Examplesofthesewidelyacceptedactsarecommandsorpromises. ThefirstoftheseopinionsistheoneheldbyJohnL.Austinwhocoinedtheterm"speechact"inhisbookHowtoDoThingswithWordspublishedposthumouslyin1962.[1]AccordingtoAustin'spreliminaryinformaldescription,theideaofan"illocutionaryact"canbecapturedbyemphasizingthat"bysayingsomething,wedosomething",aswhensomeoneissuesanordertosomeonetogobysaying"Go!",orwhenaministerjoinstwopeopleinmarriagesaying,"Inowpronounceyouhusbandandwife."(Austinwouldeventuallydefinethe"illocutionaryact"inamoreexactmanner.) JohnR.SearlegaveanalternativetoAustin'sexplanationoftheillocutionaryactsaying,a"speechact"isoftenmeanttorefertoexactlythesamethingasthetermillocutionaryact.Searle'sworkonspeechactsisunderstoodtofurtherrefineAustin'sconception.However,somephilosophershavepointedoutasignificantdifferencebetweenthetwoconceptions:whereasAustinemphasizedtheconventionalinterpretationofspeechacts,Searleemphasizedapsychologicalinterpretation(basedonbeliefs,intentions,etc.).[12] Perlocutionaryacts[edit] Whileillocutionaryactsrelatemoretothespeaker,perlocutionaryactsarecenteredaroundthelistener.Perlocutionaryactsalwayshavea'perlocutionaryeffect'whichistheeffectaspeechacthasonalistener.Thiscouldaffectthelistener'sthoughts,emotionsoreventheirphysicalactions.[13]Anexampleofthiscouldbeifsomeoneutteredthesentence"I'mhungry."Theperlocutionaryeffectonthelistenercouldbetheeffectofbeingpersuadedbytheutterance.Forexample,afterhearingtheutterance,thelistenercouldbepersuadedtomakeasandwichforthespeaker. Performativespeechacts[edit] AninterestingtypeofillocutionaryspeechactisthatperformedintheutteranceofwhatAustincallsperformativeutterances,typicalinstancesofwhichare"InominateJohntobePresident","Isentenceyoutotenyears'imprisonment",or"Ipromisetopayyouback."Inthesetypical,ratherexplicitcasesofperformativesentences,theactionthatthesentencedescribes(nominating,sentencing,promising)isperformedbytheutteranceofthesentenceitself.J.L.Austinclaimedthatperformativesentencescouldbe"happyorunhappy".Theywereonlyhappyifthespeakerdoestheactionsheorshetalksabout.Theywereunhappyifthisdidnothappen.Performativespeechactsalsouseexplicitverbsinsteadofimplicitones.Forexample,stating"Iintendtogo."doesconveyinformation,butitdoesnotreallymeanthatyouare[e.g.]promisingtogo;soitdoesnotcountas"performing"anaction("suchas"theactionofpromisingtogo).Therefore,it[theword"intend"]isanimplicitverb;i.e.,averbthatwouldnotbesuitableforuseinperformativespeechacts.[14] Indirectspeechacts[edit] Inthecourseofperformingspeechactspeoplecommunicatewitheachother.Thecontentofcommunicationmaybeidentical,oralmostidentical,withthecontentintendedtobecommunicated,aswhenastrangerasks,"Whatisyourname?"However,themeaningofthelinguisticmeansusedmayalsobedifferentfromthecontentintendedtobecommunicated.Onemay,inappropriatecircumstances,requestPetertodothedishesbyjustsaying,"Peter...!",oronecanpromisetodothedishesbysaying,"Me!"[citationneeded] Onecommonwayofperformingspeechactsistouseanexpressionwhichindicatesonespeechact,andindeedperformsthisact,butalsoperformsafurtherspeechact,whichisindirect.Onemay,forinstance,say,"Peter,canyouclosethewindow?",therebyaskingPeterwhetherhewillbeabletoclosethewindow,butalsorequestingthathedoesso.Sincetherequestisperformedindirectly,bymeansof(directly)performingaquestion,itcountsasanindirectspeechact.[citationneeded] Anevenmoreindirectwayofmakingsucharequestwouldbetosay,inPeter'spresenceintheroomwiththeopenwindow,"I'mcold."ThespeakerofthisrequestmustrelyuponPeter'sunderstandingofseveralitemsofinformationthatisnotexplicit:thatthewindowisopenandisthecauseofthembeingcold,thatbeingcoldisanuncomfortablesensationandtheywishittobetakencareof,andthatPetercarestorectifythissituationbyclosingthewindow.This,ofcourse,dependsmuchontherelationshipbetweentherequesterandPeter—hemightunderstandtherequestdifferentlyiftheywerehisbossatworkthaniftheywerehisgirlfriendorboyfriendathome.Themorepresumedinformationpertainingtotherequest,themoreindirectthespeechactmaybeconsideredtobe.[citationneeded] Indirectspeechactsarecommonlyusedtorejectproposalsandtomakerequests.Forexample,ifaspeakerasks,"Wouldyouliketomeetmeforcoffee?"andtheotherreplies,"Ihaveclass",thesecondspeakerhasusedanindirectspeechacttorejecttheproposal.Thisisindirectbecausetheliteralmeaningof"Ihaveclass"doesnotentailanysortofrejection.[citationneeded] Thisposesaproblemforlinguists,asitisconfusingtoseehowthepersonwhomadetheproposalcanunderstandthathisproposalwasrejected.In1975JohnSearlesuggestedthattheillocutionaryforceofindirectspeechactscanbederivedbymeansofaGriceanreasoningprocess;[15]however,theprocessheproposesdoesnotseemtoaccuratelysolvetheproblem[citationneeded]. Inotherwords,thismeansthatonedoesnotneedtosaythewordsapologize,pledge,orpraiseinordertoshowtheyaredoingtheaction.Alltheexamplesaboveshowhowtheactionsandindirectwordsmakesomethinghappenratherthancomingoutstraightforwardwithspecificwordsandsayingit.[citationneeded] Examples[edit] SpeechActsarecommonplaceineverydayinteractionsandareimportantforcommunication,aswellaspresentinmanydifferentcontexts.Examplesoftheseinclude: "You'refired!"expressesboththeemploymentstatusoftheindividualinquestion,aswellastheactionbywhichsaidperson'semploymentisended.[16] "Iherebyappointyouaschairman"expressesboththestatusoftheindividualaschairman,andtheactionwhichpromotestheindividualtothisposition.[17] "Weaskthatyouextinguishyourcigarettesatthistime,andbringyourtraytablesandseatbackstoanuprightposition."Thisstatementdescribestherequirementsofthecurrentlocation,suchasanairplane,whilealsoissuingthecommandtostopsmokingandtositupstraight. "Woulditbetoomuchtroubleformetoaskyoutohandmethatwrench?"functionstosimultaneouslyasktwoquestions.Thefirstistoaskthelisteneriftheyarecapableofpassingthewrench,whilethesecondisanactualrequest. "Well,wouldyoulistentothat?"actsasaquestion,requestingthatalistenerheedwhatisbeingsaidbythespeaker,butalsoasanexclamationofdisbelieforshock.[18] Inlanguagedevelopment[edit] In1975JohnDoreproposedthatchildren'sutteranceswererealizationsofoneofnineprimitivespeechacts:[19] labelling repeating answering requesting(action) requesting(answer) calling greeting protesting practicing Formalization[edit] ThereisnoagreedformalizationofSpeechActtheory.In1985,JohnSearleandD.Vanderveckenattemptedtogivesomegroundsofanillocutionarylogic.[20]OtherattemptshavebeenproposedbyPerMartin-Löfforatreatmentoftheconceptofassertioninsideintuitionistictypetheory,andbyCarloDallaPozza,withaproposalofaformalpragmaticsconnectingpropositionalcontent(givenwithclassicalsemantics)andillocutionaryforce(givenbyintuitionisticsemantics).Uptonowthemainbasicformalapplicationofspeechacttheoryaretobefoundinthefieldofhuman-computerinteractioninchatboxesandothertools. Incomputerscience[edit] In1991,computationalspeechactmodelsofhuman–computerconversationhavebeendeveloped,[21]andin2004speechacttheoryhasbeenusedtomodelconversationsforautomatedclassificationandretrieval.[22] Conversationforaction[edit] Thissectionpossiblycontainsoriginalresearch.Pleaseimproveitbyverifyingtheclaimsmadeandaddinginlinecitations.Statementsconsistingonlyoforiginalresearchshouldberemoved.(January2022)(Learnhowandwhentoremovethistemplatemessage) Anotherhighly-influentialviewofSpeechActshasbeenintheconversationforactiondevelopedbyTerryWinogradandFernandoFloresintheir1986text"UnderstandingComputersandCognition:ANewFoundationforDesign".[23]Arguablythemostimportantpartoftheiranalysisliesinastate-transitiondiagraminChapter5,thatWinogradandFloresclaimunderliesthesignificantillocutionary(speechact)claimsoftwopartiesattemptingtocoordinateactionwithoneanother,nomatterwhethertheagentsinvolvedmightbehuman–human,human–computer,orcomputer–computer. Akeypartofthisanalysisisthecontentionthatonedimensionofthesocialdomain-trackingtheillocutionarystatusofthetransaction(whetherindividualparticipantsclaimthattheirinterestshavebeenmet,ornot)isveryreadilyconferredtoacomputerprocess,regardlessofwhetherthecomputerhasthemeanstoadequatelyrepresenttherealworldissuesunderlyingthatclaim.Thusacomputerinstantiatingtheconversationforactionhastheusefulabilitytomodelthestatusofthecurrentsocialrealityindependentofanyexternalrealityonwhichsocialclaimsmaybebased. Thistransactionalviewofspeechactshassignificantapplicationsinmanyareasinwhich(human)individualshavehaddifferentroles,forinstance,apatientandaphysicianmightmeetinanencounterinwhichthepatientmakesarequestfortreatment,thephysicianrespondswithacounter-offerinvolvingatreatmenttheyfeelisappropriate,andthepatientmightrespond,etc.Suchaconversationforactioncandescribeasituationinwhichanexternalobserver(suchasacomputerorhealthinformationsystem)maybeabletotracktheillocutionary(orspeechact)statusofnegotiationsbetweenthepatientandphysicianparticipantsevenintheabsenceofanyadequatemodeloftheillnessorproposedtreatments.ThekeyinsightprovidedbyWinogradandFloresisthatthestate-transitiondiagramrepresentingthesocial(Illocutionary)negotiationofthetwopartiesinvolvedisgenerallymuch,muchsimplerthananymodelrepresentingtheworldinwhichthosepartiesaremakingclaims;inshort,thesystemtrackingthestatusoftheconversationforactionneednotbeconcernedwithmodelingalloftherealitiesoftheexternalworld.Aconversationforactioniscriticallydependentuponcertainstereotypicalclaimsaboutthestatusoftheworldmadebythetwoparties.Thusaconversationforactioncanbereadilytrackedandfacilitatedbyadevicewithlittleornoabilitytomodelcircumstancesintherealworldotherthantheabilitytoregisterclaimsbyspecificagentsaboutadomain. Rules[edit] Inthepast,philosophyhasdiscussedrulesforwhenexpressionsareused.Thetworulesareconstitutiveandregulativerules.[24] TheconceptofconstitutiverulesfindsitsorigininWittgensteinandJohnRawls,[25]andhasbeenelaboratedbyG.C.J.Midgley,[26]MaxBlack,[27]G.H.vonWright,[28]DavidShwayder,[29]andJohnSearle.[30] Whereasregulativerulesareprescriptionsthatregulateapre-existingactivity(whoseexistenceislogicallyindependentoftherules),constitutiverulesconstituteanactivitytheexistenceofwhichislogicallydependentontherules. Forexample:trafficrulesareregulativerulesthatprescribecertainbehaviourinordertoregulatethetraffic.Withouttheseruleshowever,thetrafficwouldnotceasetobe.Incontrast:therulesofchessareconstitutiverulesthatconstitutethegame.Withouttheseruleschesswouldnotexist,sincethegameislogicallydependentontherules.[31] Inmultiagentuniverses[edit] Multi-agentsystemssometimesusespeechactlabelstoexpresstheintentofanagentwhenitsendsamessagetoanotheragent.Forexample,theintent"inform"inthemessage"inform(content)"maybeinterpretedasarequestthatthereceivingagentaddstheitem"content"toitsknowledge-base;thisisincontrasttothemessage"query(content)"whichmaybeinterpreted(dependingonthesemanticsemployed)asarequesttoseeiftheitemcontentiscurrentlyinthereceivingagentsknowledgebase.ThereareatleasttwostandardisationsofspeechactlabelledmessagingKQMLandFIPA. KQMLandFIPAarebasedontheSearlian,thatis,psychologicalsemanticsofspeechacts.MunindarP.Singhhaslongadvocatedmovingawayfromthepsychologicaltoasocialsemanticsofspeechacts—onethatwouldbeintunewithAustin'sconception.[32]AndrewJones[33]hasalsobeenacriticofthepsychologicalconception.Arecentcollectionofmanifestosbyresearchersinagentcommunicationreflectsagrowingrecognitioninthemultiagentsystemscommunityofthebenefitsofasocialsemantics.[34] Otherusesintechnology[edit] Anofficecanbeseenasasystemofspeechacts.TheabbreviationSAMPOstandsforSpeech-Act-basedofficeModelingapproach,which"studiesofficeactivitiesasaseriesofspeechactscreating,maintaining,modifying,reporting,andterminatingcommitments".[35] Speechactprofilinghasbeenusedtodetectdeceptioninsynchronouscomputer-mediatedcommunication.[36] Inpoliticalscience[edit] Inpoliticalscience,theCopenhagenSchooladoptsspeechactasaformoffelicitousspeechact(orsimply'facilitatingconditions'),wherebythespeaker,oftenpoliticiansorplayers,actinaccordancetothetruthbutinpreparationfortheaudiencetotakeactioninthedirectionsoftheplayerthataredrivenorincitedbytheact.Thisformsanobservableframeworkunderaspecifiedsubjectmatterfromtheplayer,andtheaudiencewhoare'under-theorised[would]remainoutsideoftheframeworkitself,andwouldbenefitfrombeingbothbroughtinanddrawnout.'[37]Itisbecausetheaudiencewouldnotbeinformedoftheintentionsoftheplayer,excepttofocusonthedisplayofthespeechactitself.Therefore,intheperspectiveoftheplayer,thetruthofthesubjectmatterisirrelevantexcepttheresultproducedviatheaudience.[38] Thestudyofspeechactsisprevalentinlegaltheorysincelawsthemselvescanbeinterpretedasspeechacts.Lawsissueoutacommandtotheirconstituentswhichcanberealizedasanaction.Whenformingalegalcontract,speechactscanbemadewhenpeoplearemakingoracceptinganoffer.[39]Consideringthetheoryoffreedomofspeech,somespeechactsmaynotbelegallyprotected.Forexample,adeaththreatisatypeofspeechactandisconsideredtoexistoutsideoftheprotectionoffreedomofspeechasitistreatedasacriminalact. Ineconomicsociology[edit] Inasociologicalperspective,NicolasBrissetadoptstheconceptofspeechactinordertounderstandhoweconomicmodelsparticipateinthemakingandthespreadingofrepresentationsinsideandoutsideofthescientificfield.Brissetarguesthatmodelsperformactionsindifferentfields(scientific,academic,practical,andpolitical).Thismultiplicityoffieldsinducesavarietyoffelicityconditionsandtypesofperformedactions.Thisperspectiveisacriticismoftheessentialismofphilosophicalmodellingstudies.[40]ThisapproachislargelyinspiredbytheworkofPierreBourdieu[41]andQuentinSkinner. Infinance,itispossibletounderstandmathematicalmodelsasspeechacts:in2016thenotionof"financialLogos"wasdefinedasthespeechactofmathematicalmodellingoffinancialrisks.TheactionofthefinancialLogosonfinancialpracticesistheframingoffinancialdecision-makingbyriskmodelling.[42] Seealso[edit] Analogy Cooperativeprinciple Directionoffit Discourse-completiontask Entailment(pragmatics) Implicature Metaphor Phatic Pragmatics Presupposition Politenesstheory Relevancetheory#Speechacts Notes[edit] ^abcd1911–1960.,Austin,J.L.(JohnLangshaw)(1975).Howtodothingswithwords.Urmson,J.O.,Sbisà,Marina.(2nd ed.).Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.ISBN 978-0674411524.OCLC 1811317.{{citebook}}:CS1maint:numericnames:authorslist(link) ^Ingber,Warren;Bach,Kent;Harnish,RobertM.(January1982)."LinguisticCommunicationandSpeechActs".ThePhilosophicalReview.91(1):134.doi:10.2307/2184680.JSTOR 2184680. ^"TheCenterforAdvancedResearchonLanguageAcquisition(CARLA):PragmaticsandSpeechActs".carla.umn.edu.Retrieved2019-02-20. ^Bach,Kent."SpeechActs."SpeechActs.RoutledgeEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,n.d.Web.10Feb.2014 ^Littlejohn,S.(2009).Speechacttheory.InS.Littlejohn,&K.Foss(Eds.),Encyclopediaofcommunicationtheory.(pp.919–921).ThousandOaks,CA:SAGEPublications,Inc.doi:10.4135/9781412959384.n356 ^"Amanmaysee,andhear,andremember,andjudge,andreason;hemaydeliberateandformpurposes,andexecutethem,withouttheinterventionofanyotherintelligentbeing.Theyaresolitaryacts.Butwhenheasksaquestionforinformation,whenhetestifiesafact,whenhegivesacommandtohisservant,whenhemakesapromise,orentersintoacontract,thesearesocialactsofmind,andcanhavenoexistencewithouttheinterventionofsomeotherintelligentbeing,whoactsapartinthem.Betweentheoperationsofthemind,which,forwantofamorepropername,Ihavecalledsolitary,andthoseIhavecalledsocial,thereisthisveryremarkabledistinction,that,inthesolitary,theexpressionofthembywords,oranyothersensiblesign,isaccidental.Theymayexist,andbecomplete,withoutbeingexpressed,withoutbeingknowntoanyotherperson.But,inthesocialoperations,theexpressionisessential.Theycannotexistwithoutbeingexpressedbywordsorsigns,andknowntotheotherparty."Cf.Mulligan,K.Promisingsandothersocialacts–theirconstituentsandstructure.inMulligan,K.,editorSpeechActandSachverhalt:ReinachandtheFoundationsofRealistPhenomenology.Nijhoff,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster1987.QuotefromReid1969,437–438). ^Mulligan,K.Promisingsandothersocialacts–theirconstituentsandstructure.inMulligan,K.,editorSpeechActandSachverhalt:ReinachandtheFoundationsofRealistPhenomenology.Nijhoff,Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster1987. ^MatejkaGrgic,IgorZ.Žagar,HowtoDoThingswithTenseandAspect:PerformativitybeforeAustin,NewcastleuponTyne,CambridgeScholarsPublishing,2011. ^"DieAxiomatikderSprachwissenschaften”,Kant-Studien38(1933),43,wherehediscussesaTheoriederSprechhandlungen ^Sprachtheorie(Jena:Fischer,1934)whereheuses"Sprechhandlung"and"TheoriederSprechakte" ^Gibbon,D.,"ANewLookatIntonationSyntaxandSemantics",inA.R.James&P.Westney,eds.,NewLinguisticImpulsesinForeignLanguageTeaching(Tübingen:GunterNarrVerlag,1981),esp.pp.88–93. ^Searle,JohnR.(July2002).ConsciousnessandLanguagebyJohnR.Searle.CambridgeCore.doi:10.1017/cbo9780511606366.ISBN 9780511606366.Retrieved2019-03-04. ^Birner,BettyJ.(2013).BlackwellTextbookInLinguistics.Wiley-Blackwell.p. 187. ^Essaysinspeechacttheory.Vanderveken,Daniel.,Kubo,Susumu.Amsterdam:J.BenjaminsPub.Co.2001.ISBN 9789027298157.OCLC 70766237.{{citebook}}:CS1maint:others(link) ^Searle,JohnR.(1975)."IndirectSpeechActs".SpeechActs.SyntaxandSemantics.Vol. 3.NewYork:AcademicPress.pp. 59–82.ISBN 0-12-785423-1. ^Mann,StevenT.(March2009)."'You'reFired':AnApplicationofSpeechActTheoryto2Samuel15.23—16.14".JournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestament.33(3):315–334.doi:10.1177/0309089209102499.ISSN 0309-0892.S2CID 170553371. ^Dennis.,Kurzon(1986).Itisherebyperformed-- :explorationsinlegalspeechacts.Amsterdam:J.BenjaminsPub.Co.ISBN 9789027279293.OCLC 637671814. ^"SpeechActsandConversation".www.sas.upenn.edu.Retrieved2019-03-04. ^Dore,John(1975)."Holophrases,SpeechActsandLanguageUniversals".JournalofChildLanguage.2:21–40.doi:10.1017/S0305000900000878.ProQuest 85490541. ^Searle,J.R.,Vandervecken,D.:FoundationsofIllocutionaryLogic.CambridgeUniversityPress:Cambridge1985 ^R.A.Morelli;J.D.Bronzino;J.W.Goethe(1991).Acomputationalspeech-actmodelofhuman-computerconversations.BioengineeringConference,1991.,Proceedingsofthe1991IEEESeventeenthAnnualNortheast.Hartford,CT.pp. 263–264.doi:10.1109/NEBC.1991.154675. ^DouglasP.Twitchell;MarkAdkins;JayF.NunamakerJr.;JudeeK.Burgoon(2004).UsingSpeechActTheorytoModelConversationsforAutomatedClassificationandRetrieval(PDF).Proceedingsofthe9thInternationalWorkingConferenceontheLanguage-ActionPerspectiveonCommunicationModelling(LAP2004). ^Winograd,Terry(1986).Understandingcomputersandcognition :anewfoundationfordesign.Norwood,NJ.ISBN 0-89391-050-3.OCLC 11727403. ^Searle,John."WhatisaSpeechAct?"(PDF). ^JohnRawls:TwoConceptsofRules(1955) ^G.C.J.Midgley:LinguisticRules(1959) ^MaxBlack:ModelsandMetaphors(1962) ^G.H.vonWright:NormandAction(1963) ^DavidSchwayder:TheStratificationofBehaviour(1965) ^Searle:SpeechActs(1969) ^KathrinGlüerandPeterPagin:RulesofMeaningandPracticalReasoning(1998) ^"SocialandPsychologicalCommitmentsinMultiagentSystems"(PDF).Retrieved24April2013. ^"AndrewJ.I.Jones". ^"ResearchDirectionsinAgentCommunication"(PDF). ^Auramäki,Esa;Lehtinen,Erkki;Lyytinen,Kalle(1988-04-01)."Aspeech-act-basedofficemodelingapproach".ACMTransactionsonInformationSystems.6(2):126–152.doi:10.1145/45941.214328.ISSN 1046-8188.S2CID 16952302. ^"Detectingdeceptioninsynchronouscomputer-mediatedcommunicationusingspeechactprofiling". ^http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1232/1/WRAP_McDonald_0671572-pais-270709-mcdonald_securitisation_and_construction_of_security_ejir_forthcoming_2008.pdf[bareURLPDF] ^BarryBuzan,OleWaeverandJaapdeWilde;Buzan,ResearchProfessorofInternationalStudiesCentrefortheStudyofDemocracyBarry;Etc;Wæver,Ole;Waever,Ole;Wilde,Jaapde(1998).Security:ANewFrameworkforAnalysis.LynneRiennerPublishers.ISBN 978-1-55587-784-2. ^"LegalTheoryLexicon:SpeechActs".LegalTheoryBlog.Retrieved2018-04-15. ^Brisset,Nicolas(2018-01-02)."Modelsasspeechacts:thetellingcaseoffinancialmodels"(PDF).JournalofEconomicMethodology.25(1):21–41.doi:10.1080/1350178X.2018.1419105.ISSN 1350-178X.S2CID 148612438. ^Brisset,Nicolas;Jullien,Dorian(2020-04-02)."Themodel(also)intheworld:extendingthesociologicaltheoryoffieldstoeconomicmodels".JournalofEconomicMethodology.27(2):130–145.doi:10.1080/1350178X.2019.1680857.ISSN 1350-178X.S2CID 210479183. ^Walter,Christian(2016)."ThefinancialLogos :Theframingoffinancialdecision-makingbymathematicalmodelling".ResearchinInternationalBusinessandFinance.37:597–604.doi:10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.01.022. Bibliography[edit] JohnLangshawAustin:HowtoDoThingsWithWords.Cambridge(Mass.)1962,paperback:HarvardUniversityPress,2ndedition,2005,ISBN 0-674-41152-8. WilliamP.Alston:'IllocutionaryActsandSentenceMeaning'.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress2000,ISBN 0-8014-3669-9. Bach,Kent."SpeechActs."SpeechActs.RoutledgeEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,n.d.Web.10Feb.2014. Doerge,FriedrichChristoph.IllocutionaryActs–Austin'sAccountandWhatSearleMadeOutofIt..Tuebingen2006. Dorschel,Andreas,'Whatisittounderstandadirectivespeechact?',in:AustralasianJournalofPhilosophyLXVII(1989),nr.3,pp. 319–340. JohnSearle,SpeechActs,CambridgeUniversityPress1969,ISBN 0-521-09626-X. JohnSearle,"Indirectspeechacts."InSyntaxandSemantics,3:SpeechActs,ed.P.Cole&J.L.Morgan,pp. 59–82.NewYork:AcademicPress.(1975).ReprintedinPragmatics:AReader,ed.S.Davis,pp. 265–277.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.(1991) GeoSiegwart,"AlethicActsandAlethiologicalReflection.AnOutlineofConstructivePhilosophyofTruth."InTruthandSpeechActs:Studiesinthephilosophyoflanguage,ed.D.Greimann&G.Siegwart,pp. 41–58.NewYork:Routledge.(2007) TerryWinograd&FernandoFlores,UnderstandingComputersandCognition:ANewFoundationforDesign,AblexPublishingCorp,(Norwood),1986.ISBN 0-89391-050-3. BirgitErler:Thespeechactofforbiddinganditsrealizations:Alinguisticanalysis.Saarbrücken:VDMVerlagDr.Müller,2010,ISBN 978-3-639-23275-2. RobertMaximiliandeGaynesford:Illocutionaryacts,Subordination,andSilencinginAnalysis,July2009. Outi,Malmivuori:ZuStandundEntwicklungderSprechakttheorie.ZuGrundsätzenderTheoriedesspachlichenHandelns.AkademikerVerlag.2012.ISBN 978-3-639-44043-0. MattMcDonald:SecuritisationandtheConstructionofSecurity.UniversityofWarwick.(2008) BarryBuzan,OleWaever&JaapdeWilde:Security:ANewFrameworkforAnalysis.ColoradoBoulder:LynneRienner.(1998) Furtherreading[edit] Schuhmann,Karl;Smith,Barry(1990)."ElementsofSpeechActTheoryintheWorkofThomasReid"(PDF).HistoryofPhilosophyQuarterly.7:47–66.S2CID 18906253.Archivedfromtheoriginal(PDF)on2019-08-05. Brock,Jarrett(1981)."AnIntroductiontoPeirce'sTheoryofSpeechActs".TransactionsoftheCharlesS.PeirceSociety.17(4):319–326.JSTOR 40319937. Externallinks[edit] Green,Mitchell."SpeechActs".InZalta,EdwardN.(ed.).StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy. SpeechActsentryfromRoutledgeEncyclopediaofPhilosophy,byKentBach BarrySmith,TowardsaHistoryofSpeechActTheoryed.M.McDonald,pp. 2–3.Warwick:UniversityofWarwick.(2008) FoundationforIntelligentPhysicalAgents StrategiesforLearningSpeechActsinJapanesebyNorikoIshihara vtePhilosophyoflanguageIndexoflanguagearticlesPhilosophers Plato(Cratylus) Gorgias Confucius Xunzi Aristotle Stoics Pyrrhonists Scholasticism IbnRushd IbnKhaldun ThomasHobbes GottfriedWilhelmLeibniz JohannHerder LudwigNoiré WilhelmvonHumboldt FritzMauthner PaulRicœur FerdinanddeSaussure GottlobFrege FranzBoas PaulTillich EdwardSapir LeonardBloomfield Zhuangzi HenriBergson LevVygotsky LudwigWittgenstein PhilosophicalInvestigations TractatusLogico-Philosophicus BertrandRussell RudolfCarnap JacquesDerrida OfGrammatology LimitedInc BenjaminLeeWhorf GustavBergmann J.L.Austin NoamChomsky Hans-GeorgGadamer SaulKripke A.J.Ayer G.E.M.Anscombe JaakkoHintikka MichaelDummett DonaldDavidson RogerGibson PaulGrice GilbertRyle P.F.Strawson WillardVanOrmanQuine HilaryPutnam DavidLewis RobertStalnaker JohnSearle JoxeAzurmendi ScottSoames StephenYablo JohnHawthorne StephenNeale PaulWatzlawick RichardMontague BarbaraPartee Theories Causaltheoryofreference Contrasttheoryofmeaning Contrastivism Conventionalism Cratylism Deconstruction Descriptivism Directreferencetheory Dramatism Dynamicsemantics Expressivism Inquisitivesemantics Linguisticdeterminism Mediatedreferencetheory Nominalism Non-cognitivism Phallogocentrism Relevancetheory Semanticexternalism Semanticholism Situationsemantics Structuralism Suppositiontheory Symbiosism Theologicalnoncognitivism Theoryofdescriptions(Definitedescription) Unilalianism Verificationtheory Concepts Ambiguity Cant Linguisticrelativity Language Truth-bearer Proposition Use–mentiondistinction Concept Categories Set Class Familyresemblance Intension Logicalform Metalanguage Mentalrepresentation Modality(naturallanguage) Presupposition Principleofcompositionality Property Sign Senseandreference Speechact Symbol Sentence Statement more... Relatedarticles Analyticphilosophy Philosophyofinformation Philosophicallogic Linguistics Pragmatics Rhetoric Semantics Formalsemantics Semiotics Category TaskForce Discussion vteFormalsemantics(naturallanguage)Centralconcepts Compositionality Denotation Entailment Extension Generalizedquantifier Intension Logicalform Presupposition Proposition Reference Scope Speechact Syntax–semanticsinterface Truthconditions TopicsAreas Anaphora Ambiguity Binding Conditionals Definiteness Disjunction Evidentiality Focus Indexicality Lexicalsemantics Modality Negation Propositionalattitudes Tense–aspect–mood Quantification Vagueness Phenomena Antecedent-containeddeletion Cataphora Coercion Conservativity Counterfactuals Cumulativity Dedictoanddere Dese Deonticmodality Discourserelations Donkeyanaphora Epistemicmodality Faultlessdisagreement Freechoiceinferences Givenness Crossovereffects Hurforddisjunction Inalienablepossession Intersectivemodification Logophoricity Mirativity Modalsubordination Negativepolarityitems Opaquecontexts Performatives Privativeadjectives Quantificationalvariabilityeffect Responsivepredicate Risingdeclaratives Scalarimplicature Sloppyidentity Subsectivemodification Subtrigging Telicity Temperatureparadox Veridicality FormalismFormalsystems Alternativesemantics Categorialgrammar Combinatorycategorialgrammar Discourserepresentationtheory Dynamicsemantics Framesemantics Generativegrammar Gluesemantics Inquisitivesemantics Intensionallogic Lambdacalculus Mereology Montaguegrammar Segmenteddiscourserepresentationtheory Situationsemantics Supervaluationism Typetheory TTR Concepts Autonomyofsyntax Contextset Continuation Conversationalscoreboard Existentialclosure Functionapplication Meaningpostulate Monads Possibleworld Quantifierraising Quantization Questionunderdiscussion Squiggleoperator Strictconditional Typeshifter Universalgrinder Seealso Cognitivesemantics Computationalsemantics Distributionalsemantics Formalgrammar Inferentialism Linguisticswars Philosophyoflanguage Pragmatics Context Deixis Semanticsoflogic Authoritycontrol:Nationallibraries Germany Israel UnitedStates Latvia Retrievedfrom"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speech_act&oldid=1096286759" Categories:DiscourseanalysisSemanticsOralcommunicationPhilosophyoflanguagePragmaticsFormalsemantics(naturallanguage)Hiddencategories:CS1maint:numericnames:authorslistCS1maint:othersAllarticleswithbareURLsforcitationsArticleswithbareURLsforcitationsfromMarch2022ArticleswithPDFformatbareURLsforcitationsArticleswithshortdescriptionShortdescriptionmatchesWikidataAllarticleswithunsourcedstatementsArticleswithunsourcedstatementsfromJanuary2022ArticleswithunsourcedstatementsfromFebruary2020ArticlesthatmaycontainoriginalresearchfromJanuary2022AllarticlesthatmaycontainoriginalresearchArticleswithGNDidentifiersArticleswithJ9UidentifiersArticleswithLCCNidentifiersArticleswithLNBidentifiers Navigationmenu Personaltools NotloggedinTalkContributionsCreateaccountLogin Namespaces ArticleTalk English Views ReadEditViewhistory More Search Navigation MainpageContentsCurrenteventsRandomarticleAboutWikipediaContactusDonate Contribute HelpLearntoeditCommunityportalRecentchangesUploadfile Tools WhatlinkshereRelatedchangesUploadfileSpecialpagesPermanentlinkPageinformationCitethispageWikidataitem Print/export DownloadasPDFPrintableversion Languages العربيةБългарскиCatalàČeštinaDanskDeutschEestiΕλληνικάEspañolEuskaraفارسیFrançaisGalego한국어BahasaIndonesiaᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitutÍslenskaItalianoעבריתLatviešuLëtzebuergeschMagyarNederlands日本語NorskbokmålOccitanਪੰਜਾਬੀPolskiPortuguêsРусскийSlovenčinaСрпски/srpskiSuomiSvenskaУкраїнська中文 Editlinks