Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Speech Acts Theory
Transcript of Speech Acts Theory
Halion .K: Deconstruction and Speech Act Theory:A Defence of the Distinction between Normal and Parasitic Speech Acts. E-anglais.com http://www.e-anglais.com/thesis.html#2.2 (Last access 7th Oct 2012).
Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (editors):The Handbook of Pragmatics
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9780631225485_chunk_g97806312254855 (Last access 7th Oct 2012).
Pinner.Richard S:Speech Acts Theory:Benifits and Insights in English Language Teaching. http://www.slideshare.net/engnet/r-pinner-speech-act-theory-for-language-teaching. (Last access 7th Oct 2012). *Searle agrees that, in some situations, understanding intentions might lead to a certain perlocutionary effect.
*However,Searle sees that the addressee sometimes relies on the conventional device used in the utterance. (illocutionary force indicating device). Sometimes,to understand what one has said we rely on context. Both of them criticised austin’s model as they see that his theory laregly accounts for speech acts in highly formal and conventional/ceremonial situations (christening, marrying).
They see that in ordinary everyday communicative situations, the addressee gets the force of the speech act (the perlocutionary effect) and responds in a certain way through understanding the speaker’s intentions. Searle believes that since meaning sometimes determines force, and force is assimilated to meaning,the distinction is not general.
‘I promise…’ has the force of a promise simply through the meaning of the words it contains. 1- both Austin and Searle reject the first classification of speech act: constative Vs performative.
2- they both agree that a speech act is the basic unit of meaning and force.
3- both of them accept that there are illocutionary acts and perlocutionary acts. 3-Searle’ classification of speech acts: 1-Verdictives: Delivering a finding: acuit,hold,calculate….
2-Exercitives:Giving a decision: order,command,direct….
3-Commissives:Committing to an action: promise,vow,pledge….
4-Behabitives:Reacting to others’ behaviour: apologize,deplore,thank….
5-Expositives: Expounding a view: affirm,emphasiz,illustrate…. Austin suggests three acts of speech:
3-Perlocutionary Act. 1-Review of Austin’s classification.
2-The types of illocutionary acts.
3-Comparing Searle’s to Austin’s Classifictions.
4-Searle’s criticism of Austin’s model.
5-Grice’s criticism od Austin’s model.
6-Searle’s reaction to Grice’s criticism. Similarities 4- their understanding of perlocutionary act is similar.
5- both Searle and Austin emphasise that there is no need for an illocutionary
force indicator (devise) at the surface level to indicate the force being performed.
Context makes clear what the force of an utterance is.
e.g:‘’I will be there’’. 1-Austin denies that different phatic acts can produce the same rhetic act.
2-Searle believes that different utterance acts can involve the same propositional act.
E.g: « today is beautiful ».
3-Austin believes that there is a difference between a locutionary and an illocutionary act. The same meaning can yield different illocutionary forces.
‘I am going to do it’.