You will recall that we identified the role of the context in determining the meaning of indexical references such as here, there or now. If I say to you: “the work must be finished now” and someone else tells you “youths are far more responsible now than ever” and your father tells you “I’m here now” you are able to differentiate between the various indexical now depending on the context in which each occurs.
The last expression for example may be interpreted as a reassurance than mere announcing your father’s presence at that particular time or even a warning. Speech acts show the force that utterances have for counting as actions rather than mere giving of information. In this article we shall examine in fair detail how words or utterances perform actions such as promising, commanding, warning etc.
Doing things with Words
John Austin (1962, also Searle, 1969)
recognised that language is a tool for performing actions. Therefore the
“meaning” we associate with an utterance is the user’s intention, and not the
meaning of words in the utterance. If we study a user’s intention, we are
studying what s/he does with words, either in speech or writing. Austin
postulates that when an individual makes an utterance, s/he performs some
“speech acts” such as requesting, questioning, pronouncing, informing etc. This
implies that rather than talk of linguistic forms of the utterance, we
talk of the functions of these forms. For exmple:
Form |
Function |
(i) May I
use your pen for a moment? Request |
Interrogative |
(ii) Did
you attend the lecture? Question |
Interrogative |
(iii) Leave
the room! Command |
Imperative |
(iv) I lost the opportunity Information |
Declarative |
Forms such as “Did you attend the lecture?” “Are you coming to my party” “Can you play the piano?” used as questions are described as direct speech acts. Now compare direct speech acts with the following forms:
(ii)
Can
you spare your piano?
The form in (vi) is not
likely to be treated as a question just like the form in (i). Rather than being
viewed as a question about the person’s ability to spare his piano, you will
treat it as a request although it is presented in form of a question. This is
described as indirect speech act.
We realise that we indeed
do things with words when we talk. We often say:
(iii)
“I’m
here now” to comfort someone or reassure them
(iv)
“I’ve
come again” to apologise for troubling someone
(v)
“Don’t
forget me” to remind someone that he hasn’t done your job or
(vi)
“You
met me well” to invite someone to eat with you
All the above examples
show that there is a difference between the literal meaning of what is said and
what acts the utterances actually performed.
Indirect Speech Act
As we said above, indirect speech act is when a statement is used to perform an action such as request, permission, or apology other than its direct implication. A question like “do you have some money there?” from a friend alighting from a taxi certainly means a request for some money. “You packed the car on the road” could mean “go and remove the car” or “the door is open” may be a request (indirectly) asking someone to shut the door.
What do you think of a situation
where someone fails to understand another person’s indirect speech act? If
someone comes to you and asks you: “please do you know the way to the post
office?” If you simply say yes and go away, of course the person will
definitely get embarrassed because you have failed to interpret his/her
indirect speech of asking you to direct him/her to the post office. S/he may
even take it that you understood but deliberately didn’t want to help him/her.
Locutionary, Illocutionary and
Perlocutionary Acts
Take the statement in (x) above again for example. It says: “You met me well.”
(a)
First,
this statement conveys a proposition that the speaker is met in good condition
of health and both the speaker and hearer are well. In this case, the statement
as a sentence is conveying something true and meaningful.
(b)
If
this sentence is taken as an utterance, it has a force, which is counted as an
invitation to eat. Used in this way, it doesn’t matter if the sentence is true
or false; rather the utterance represents the intention of the speaker to
invite.
(c)
The
utterance will have some effects or consequences, especially what the invitee
considers the utterance to mean for him. Normally in the Zambian context, the
invitee will consider the utterance not just as an invitation to eat but also a
form of a welcome, comradeship and acceptance, even if he doesn’t join in the
meal. In most cases the invitee doesn’t eat but the speaker is well disposed to
having him at table.
Austin (1962) explains
that when an individual makes a sentence with a certain meaning using the
grammar, phonology and semantics of the language. S/he performs the locutionary
act. Therefore (a) above is locutionary act because it makes a determinate
“sense.” The Illocutionary act is the intention of an utterance to
constitute either an act of promise, command, invitation, agreement, greeting,
pronouncement etc. (b) above is the illocutionary act (i.e. to invite). If the
utterance achieves certain response or effect, like embarrassment, fear,
confusion, enjoyment, acceptance etc., it is called the Perlocutionary act.
Therefore (c) above is the perlocutionary act.
The illocutionary act is
where speakers or writers actually “do things with words”. According to Austin,
illocutionary act is performed by “performative sentences”, because, by virtue
of its structure, a performative sentence has a “conversational force” like the
force of pronouncing a man and a woman husband and wife or sentencing a
defendant in court.
Searle’s Speech Acts
Searle (1969) gives the
condition for performing speech acts. The “felicity conditions” must be met in
order to make a promise for instance. The conditions are as follows:
i.
the
utterance refers to some future act of the speaker
ii.
the
speaker would not normally be carrying it out
iii.
the
speaker recognizes he has taken on a responsibility
These “conditions” are to
determine when the performance of speech act may be appropriate or
inappropriate.
Searle (1976) further gives
5 types of acts that are performed in speaking. They are:
(i)
Representative Act - describing events, process, states; also assertions, claims, reports,
suggestion etc. A newspaper report such as “the plane crashed at Lisa in Ogun
state in the early hours of yesterday” will be considered as performing a
representative act.
(ii)
Declarative Act
- pronouncing, sentencing, christening, e.g. I christen you John.
(iii)
Directive Acts
- commanding, requesting, pleading, inviting, e.g. Leave this room
immediately!
(iv)
Expressive Acts
- greeting, scolding, condoling, appreciating, congratulating, apologizing,
e.g. I wish a merry Christmas
(v)
Commissive Acts
- betting, challenging, promising, threatening, offering, vowing, warning e.g. I
promise to provide you with adequate social amenities.
We can see clearly that
these acts coincide with Austin’s illocutionary act - the act that expresses
the speaker’s intention.
Cook (1989) argues that
the above acts must be performed by someone who has the necessary authority to
do so. For instance a declarative act of pronouncing a man and a woman husband
and wife must be spoken (not written) by a clergyman, while sentencing a man to
imprisonment should be at the end of a court proceeding by a judge.
CONCLUSION
Although Austin’s and
Searle’s speech acts have generated lots of reactions and criticism, we may not
deny that their contribution has been a significant effort in the explanation
of how language works in the context of users and situations. Indirect speech
act for instance, shows the various ways speakers communicate their intentions
in speech without being too direct or offensive. It also shows creative use of
language by interactants to achieve some specific goals. This is captured in
illocutionary speech acts.
No comments:
Post a Comment