TEORI PRAGMATIK

AUSTIN dan SEARLE

N A N A NG ZUBA I DI
U N I V ERSITAS N EG ERI M A L A NG
N A N A NG. ZUBA I DI .FS@ U M. AC.ID
Outline
1. History of SAT
2. Austin’s contributions on SAT
3. Searle’s contribution on SAT
History of Speech Act
Theory (SAT)
History (1)
Thomas Reid (1788); Adolf Reinach; Stanislav
Škrabec: Social act
Karl Bühler (1933): Speech act
 History (2)
Philosophical investigation (of the power of words in language)
Austin’s criticism on Positivists:
1. Constative and true - false dichotomy of meaning
Wittgenstein:
1. Ask for use, not meaning
2. Meaning hails from use
John L. Austin
John L. Austin
Military → Philosopher
Oxford University
Main contribution:
1. performative utterance
2. locutionary - illocutionary -
perlocutionary acts
 Speech Act Theory (SAT)
1. SAYING THINGS and how they EFFECT OTHERS/WORLD
2. Language:
◦mode of action
◦means of conveying information
3. SAT:
◦How SPEAKERS USE LANGUAGE to accomplish INTENDED
ACTIONS, and
◦How HEARERS INFER intended meaning form WHAT IS SAID.
 Austin: Performative Utterances
1. Criticism on positivism: Performative vs Constative
◦Not all utterances are TRUE - FALSE evaluable
◦Some have HAPPY - UNHAPPY dichotomy
◦When something is wrong or not
◦Happy-unhappy → FELICITIOUS – INFELICITIOUS →
EXPLICIT – IMPLICIT performatives
2. Uttering performative = doing an action
“I hereby declare you husband and wife”
Austin’s Level of Speech Acts
1.Locutionary act
2.Illocutionary act
3.Perlocutionary act

Focus: 1 & 2 on speaker, 3 on hearer

 Locutionary act
• Performance (pronunciation, morphology, syntax,
semantic aspects)
• Speech/mark production, with certain meaning &
reference

Locution: A form of expression; a phrase, an expression (Excerpted from

Oxford Talking Dictionary, 1998)
 Illocutionary act
• Active results of implied meaning
• Intended communicative action by the speaker,
bound to certain social conventions

Illocution: An action performed by saying or writing something, e.g.

ordering, warning, promising (Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary,
1998)
 Perlocutionary act
• Actual SA effects on hearer (thoughts,
emotions/feelings, attitudes, & physical
actions)
Perlocution: An act of speaking or writing which aims to affect an action but
which in itself does not affect or constitute the action, as persuading,
convincing (Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary, 1998)
 One utterance, different Illocutionary
force
e.g.: I’ll see you soon
1. I predict that I’ll see you soon
2. I warn you that I’ll see you soon
3. I promise you that I’ll see you soon
Austin’s Types of Speech Acts
Verdictive
Exercitive
Commissive
Behabitive
Espositive
John R. Searle
John R. Searle
Philosopher
Former emeritus professor at UC Berkeley
Main contribution:
1. Indirect speech acts
Searle’s Criticisms on Austin’s Types of
Speech Act
1. Austin’s methodology is lexicographic
2. Unclear distinction:
◦Taxonomy should be mutually exclusive
3. Austin’s taxonomy is lacking of WHY
Austin’s vs Searle’s Types of Speech Acts
AUSTIN (1962) SEARLE (1975)
Verdictive Representatives
Exercitive Directives
Commissive Commissives
Behabitive Expressives
Espositive Declarations
 1. Direct speech act
◦(direct relationship structure
and function)
Direct - Indirect
Speech Act
2. Indirect speech act
◦(indirect relationship structure
and function)
Andin: “It is cold outside”

1. Direct speech act

◦I hereby tell you about the
weather

2. Indirect speech act

◦I hereby request you to close
the door or window / to serve
hot drink / to accompany me
Illocutionary Force
Speaker’s intended function

Parameter of IF:
◦Holdcroft: Performed or not
◦Bach & Harnish: Successful or not
 Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs)
(Searle & Vanderveken, 1985)
Possible IFIDs in English:
1. Word order
2. Intonation contour
3. Stress
4. Punctuation
5. Mood of verb
6. Performative verbs
7. Felicity condition (appropriateness): context and role of the speaker
Felicity conditions
Conditions which must be fulfilled for a speech act
to be satisfactorily performed or realized.
Felicity conditions
1. General condition
2. Preparatory condition
3. Content condition
4. Sincerity condition
5. Essential condition

If not fulfilled, then it’s infelicitous/inappropriate

 Example: Felicity Conditions
for Complaining
S (Mom) complained H (Dad) for not doing x
(buying nappies):
1. S believes H has not yet done x (or has not yet tried to do x)
2. S believes H is able to and is willing to do x
3. S (or H) will benefit from x
4. S believes H is aware of 2 and 3
5. S believes H understand what S is saying
6. S and H are in normal circumstances (e.g. not acting)
7. The utterance contains some IFIDs which is only uttered if all the appropriate
conditions hold
Speech event
A set of utterances performed by the
participants who interact in order to arrive
at an outcome (Ex: requesting,
complaining, making a proposal, etc.)
Bibliography
Austin, John L.. How To Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1975
[1962] ISBN 0-19-281205-X
Searle, John R. “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts”, in: Günderson, K. (ed.), Language,
Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis, vol. 7. 1975
Searle, John R. and Daniel Vanderveken. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge
University Press. 1985. ISBN 0-521-26324-7