References

1. Alston W. P. Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meaning / William P. Alston. – Ithaka : Cornell University Press, 2000.

2. Austin J. L. How to Do Things with Words / John L. Austin. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1975.

3. Bach K. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts / Kent Bach, Robert M. Harnish. – Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, 1979.

4. Doerge F. C. Illocutionary Acts – Austin’s Account and What Searle Made Out of It / Friedrich Christoph Doerge. – Tuebingen : Tuebingen University, 2006.

5. John Searle and His Critics / [Ernest Lepore, Robert van Gulick (eds.)]. – Oxford : Basil Blackwell, 1991.

6. Holdcroft D. Speech Acts and Conversation / David Holdcroft // Philosophical Quarterly. – 1979. – vol. 29 (115). – P. 125-141.

7. Schiffer S. Meaning / Stephen Schiffer. – Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1972.

8. Searle J. R. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts / John R. Searle // Language, Mind, and Knowledge : Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science / [K. Günderson (ed.)]. – Minnesota : Minnesota University Press, 1975. – vol. 7. – P. 344-369.

9. Searle J. R. Expression and Meaning / John R. Searle. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1979.

10. Searle J. R. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic / John R. Searle, Daniel Vanderveken. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1985.

11. Searle J. R. Speech Acts : An Essay in The Philosophy of Language / John R. Searle. – Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1969.

12. Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions : Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle / [Armin Burkhardt (ed.)]. – Berlin / New York, 1990.

4. Indirect Speech Acts

Issues Discussed:

1. Definition

2. J. R. Searle’s theory of “indirect speech acts”

3. Analysis using Searle’s theory

Definition

In the course of performing speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the content intended to be communicated, as when a stranger asks: "What is your name?".

However, the meaning of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic means, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the content intended to be communicated. One may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the dishes by just saying: "Peter!", or one can promise to do the dishes by saying: "Me!" One common way of performing speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. One may, for instance, say: "Peter, can you open the window?", thereby asking Peter whether he will be able to open the window, but also requesting that he do so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performing a question, it counts as an indirect speech act.

Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, a speaker asks: "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies: "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the proposal. This is indirect because the literal meaning of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection.

This poses a problem for linguists because it is confusing (on a rather simple approach) to see how the person who made the proposal can understand that his proposal was rejected. Following substantially an account of H. P. Grice, J. R. Searle suggests that we are able to derive meaning out of indirect speech acts by means of a cooperative process out of which we are able to derive multiple illocutions; however, the process he proposes does not seem to accurately solve the problem. Sociolinguistics has studied the social dimensions of conversations. This discipline considers the various contexts in which speech acts occur.