SPEECH ACTS

1. LUCHY KRISTINA D (0203521047)

2. MIA LARAS ANGGITA (0203521040)
3. ANDREANA PUJI (0203521020)
WHO IS HE?

https://www.google.com/search?q=J.+L.+Austin&sxsrf=APq-
WBte2_BoMtnvhNlRDCJQD_uoRENLVg:1646368946524&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ah
UKEwjtzueh0qv2AhU34HMBHWtsDckQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1350&bih=608&dpr=1#imgrc=
G4Qmi-O_STKWgM
 JOHN LANGSHAW AUSTIN 
2.1 J.L Austin (b. 1911–d. 1960) was White's Professor of
Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford. He made a
number of contributions in various areas of philosophy,
including important work on knowledge, perception,
action, freedom, truth, language, and the use of language
in speech acts.
 ORDINARY LANGUAGE
PHILOSOPHY
2.2 Ordinary language philosophy (OLP) is a philosophical
methodology that sees traditional philosophical problems as
rooted in misunderstandings philosophers develop by distorting
or forgetting what words actually mean in everyday use. "Such
'philosophical' uses of language, on this view, create the very
philosophical problems they are employed to solve.
 ORDINARY LANGUAGE
PHILOSOPHER
• The first ordinary language philosopher is Ludwig Wittgenstein
Philosophy of Ordinary Language through his thoughts in his book entitled Philosophical
Investigations. The emergence of Wittgenstein's thoughts on the Philosophy of Ordinary
Language comes from the core of his thoughts on the grammar of language games. In this
view, the use of language that changes in everyday life is the essence of language itself.
• Gilbert Ryle (agree)
• J. L. Austin (refused)
• John Searl (Austins’ student)
• P. F. Strawson
 LOGICAL POSITIVISM AND TRUTH
CONDITIONAL SEMANTICS
2.3 Logical positivism is a philosophical system which maintains the only meaningful
statement

Loggical
Statement

Tested
analytic
empirically
 ANALYZE THE EXAMPLES BELOW!

1. An invisible car came out of nowhere, hit my car and

vanished.
2. Everyone hates Sisca Kohl because she is so popular.
3. I sleep all the time, doctor.
 THE PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS
• The performative hypothesis is the hypothesis (proposed in Ross 1970), that every 
sentence is associated with an explicit illocutionary act, i.e. is derived from a deep structure
containing a performative verb.
i. I drive a car.
ii. I apologize
iii. I bet you $5 it will rain.
 METALINGUISTIC
PERFORMATIVES
i. I say that John is a liar
-
ii. I move that fox-hunting be abolished.
-
iii. I apologize for deceiving the auditors.
-
 RITUAL PERFORMATIVE
Example:
(i) I sentence you to ten years' ...
(ii) I absolve you from your sins
(iii) I baptize you ...
(iv) I name this ship ...
 FELICITY CONDITION
Austin stated his felicity conditions as follows (1962: 14-15):
 A : (i) there must be a conventional procedure having a conventional effect,
(ii) the circumstances and persons must be appropriate.

For example:
- In a wedding ceremony a priest might say ‘I now declare you husband and wife’
- In a launching of a ship, the person who has been invited to launch the ship might say ‘I
hereby name this ship the Titanic’
 FELICITY CONDITION
 B: The procedure must be executed (i) correctly, (ii) completely.
-
Thus, the bride and groom should reply ‘I do’ (rather than ‘Okay, I suppose so’) and
the marriage license must be signed.

 C: Often
(i) the persons must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions and
(ii) if consequent conduct is specified, then the relevant parties must do it.
-
That is, the communication must be carried out by the right person, in the right place, at
the right time.
 COLLABORATIVE
PERFORMATIVES

- I bet/wager you five pounds ...

- I challenge you to pistols at dawn
- I bequeath you my gerbil

Those sentences will successfully happen if other persons agree or accept.

 GROUP PERFORMATIVES

Some performatives are either commonly or necessarily produced by more than one person,
e.g. a communique from a summit conference, a report from a committee and, most obviously,
a verdict from a jury
 CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
IN THE USE OF PERFORMATIVES

In each of the categories, we can find cross-cultural differences in the range and the use of
performatives. This is particularly so in the case of performatives relating to culturally-specific
rituals.
THE COLLAPSE OF AUSTIN'S PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS

The performative hypothesis Austin collapse since he had been able to demonstrate that
people do not use language just to make statements about the world, they also use
language to perform actions, actions which affect or change the world in some way.
 AT FIRST AUSTIN SAID THAT ONLY PERFORMATIVE VERBS COULD BE
USED TO PERFORM ACTIONS. AUSTIN'S PERFORMATIVE HYPOTHESIS
COLLAPSED FOR A NUMBER OF RATHER DIFFERENT SORTS OF REASONS:
1. There is no formal (grammatical) way of distinguishing performative verbs from other sorts of verbs.
Example : The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.
2. The presence of a performative verb does not guarantee that the specified action is performed.
Example : promise I'll come over there and hit you if you don't shut up!
3. There are ways of 'doing things with words' which do not involve using performative verbs.
People do not say: I hereby let the cat out of the bag, I hereby tread on your corn,

PLEASE RING THE BELL FOR SERVICES

 AUSTIN BRIEFLY INTRODUCED A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY
PERFORMATIVES (WHICH, FOLLOWING LEVINSON 1983 I SHALL CALL
EXPLICIT PERFORMATIVES) AND IMPLICIT PERFORMATIVES.

An explicit performative can now be seen to be a mechanism which allows the speaker to remove any
possibility of misunderstanding the force behind an utterance.

Compare:

i) We remind you that all library books are due to be returned by 9th June.
ii) All library books are due to be returned by 9th June.
 UTTERANCES AS ACTIONS

Statements are seen to have a performative aspect, and what is now needed is to distinguish between
the truth-conditional aspect of what a statement is and the action it performs; between the meaning
of the speaker's words and their illocutionary force.

Austin, in fact, made a three-fold distinction:

1. Locution the actual words uttered

2. Illocution the force or intention behind the words
3. Perlocution the effect of the illocution on the hearer
 ARTICLE
The article about speech act was deliver by Bayat Nihat, with the title A Study on The Use of
Speech Act.
Bayat Nihat (2012) states that speech act is a smallest unit in human communication, on the
other hand, speech act can be performed in a explicit or implicit manner with the object of the
research are the teacher in preschool.
 SEARLE’S CLASSIFICATION OF
SPEECH ACTS
1. Representatives, which commit the speaker to the truth of the expressed proposition
(paradigm cases: asserting, concluding)

2. Directives, which are attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something
(paradigm cases: requesting, questioning)

3. Commissive, which commit the speaker to some future of action (paradigm cases:
promising, threatening, offering)
 CONT-
4. Expressive, which express a phycological state (paradigm cases: thanking, apologizing,
welcoming, congratulating)

5. Declarations, which effect immediate changes in the instutional state of affairs and which
tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic institutions (paradigm cases: declaring war,
christening, firing from employment)
 DIRECTION OF FIT

Representative
• Speech acts that state what speaker believes to be the case or not (assertions, conclusions,
descriptions) => representing the world as he believes it is.
• The speaker makes the words fit the world
• Example: 1. The earth is flat.
2. It was a warm sunny day.
 DIRECTION OF FIT

Directive
• Speech acts that speaker use to get someone else to do something (command, orders,
requests, suggestion) => can be positive or negative
• The speaker attemps to makes the world fit the words (via hearer)
• Example: 1. Give me a cup of coffee. Make it black
2. Don’t touch that
3. Could you lend me a pen, please?
 DIRECTION OF FIT

Commissive
• Speech acts that speaker use to commit themselves to some future action (promises, threats,
refusals)
• The speaker undertakes to makes the world fit the words (via the speaker)
• Example: 1. I’ll be back.
2. I’m going to get it right next time.
3. We will not do that.
 DIRECTION OF FIT

Expressive
• Speech acts that state what speakers feels (pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, sorrow)
• The speaker makes the words fit the world (of feeling)
• Example: 1. I’m really sorry!
2. Congratulations!
3. Great!
 DIRECTION OF FIT

Declaration
• Speech acts change the world via their utterance/word,
• The speaker makes the words fit the world (of feeling)
• Example: 1. Priest “I now pronounce you husband and wife”
2. Judge “I sentence you to six months in prison!”
 CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have seen how utterances perform actions, how speakers can mean
considerably more than their words say. There are 3 distinction of speech act namely
Locution, Illocution and Perlocution
 REFERENCESS
http://www.glottopedia.org/index.php/Performative_hypothesis#:~:text=The%
20performative%20hypothesis%20is%20the,structure%20containing%20a%20performative
%20verb.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo- 9780199766567/obo-
9780199766567-0114.xml
1-s2.0-S187704281300058X-main.pdf