Speech act

From Geography

Latest revision as of 13:07, 25 October 2012

Speech act [Dutch: 'taalhandeling', or 'taaldaad'], is a technical term in linguistics and the philosophy of language. A speech act is an action or activity with an intention or goal. A speech act is not so much about the spoken words, as it is about the meaning (or intention) of these words. Speech acts are commonly taken to include such acts as promising, offering, explaining, ordering, greeting, accepting, warning, demanding, advertising, canceling, inviting, withdrawing, declaring, judging, criticizing, describing, and congratulating. (Zierhofer, 2002, 1361)

History

Speech acts became a topic in the English-speaking world in the middle of the twentieth century. It was then recognized that language can do more than only describe reality (Green, 2007). John Austin is considered the ‘founding father’ of the theory of speech acts. John Searle, a student of Austin, developed this theory further. The result of these works were an important contribution to the communicative turn in the human geography. The concept of ‘speech act’ is a blueprint for the analysis of interactions in general (Zierhofer, 2002, abstract). As Wolfgang Zierhofer claims: “I will demonstrate in what way the notions of speech acts and of validity claims are not only a key to understanding sociality, but are also important in analyzing social structures and their reproductions.” (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1355)

Definition

Besides a reason for the action, a speech act requires also a certain expectation of a reaction (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1355). For instance: one makes a joke, to make somebody smile. Or one asks a question, in order to get an answer. This indicates that speech acts provide a binding force between actions (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1355). As Zierhofer (2002, p. 1362) states: “Speech acts bind activities of different people by demanding a particular behavior: they are successful to the extent that their words elicit a specific reaction.” Speech acts determine what all the subjects have to do in the end. Whenever we try to make something clear with words - or other ways to clarify something, for instance with signs or utterances - we try to influence a subsequent action by execute a speech act (Zierhofer, 2002). So language is not only an instrument of representation, but it is also an instrument to coordinate and regulate actions (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1362).

Speech act in reality

A speech act differs from other actions in the way that a speech act is dependent of two actors to make the action successful: the ‘sender’ and the ‘receiver’ (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1361). This means that the response of the receiver is an importent element of the speech act's goal. “Therefore, the intentions of speech acts entail other actions, forming units of interaction, of social activity.” (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1361).

John Searle developed the theory of speech act by introducing indirect speech acts. In this concept the speaker communicates to the receiver more than he actually says with his words. Through relying on their, both linguistic and non- linguistic, reciprocally shared backgroundinformation and the rationality of the receiver, it is most likely that the message is understand (Searle, 1975). For exmaple, if someone suggest "Let's go to the movies tonight" and you reply with "I have to study for an exam", then you don't reject on the proposal that's made. In virtue of it's meaning it is just a statement made by you about studying. But in the particular context with the given backgroundinformation the 'sender' understands that it's a rejection on his proposal (Searle, 1975, p. 62 -63).

The conceptions of the speech acts discuss above coresponds to the phenomenological conception in sofar as the unity of actions is determined by the intentions of the actor. But according to Jacques Derrida, there is no fixed point for meaning available. In other words, speech acts are always time- and context related. A single speech act never has a fixed meaning. By using the time and contextual dimensions the succes of a speech act becomes determined and depended by communication. 'But both of the speech acts, their intersubjective acceptance and their subjective interpretation are regarded as contingent' (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1364).

In order to be effective, a speech act needs to be accepted as a valid expression: speech acts necessarily make Validity Claims (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1363). Those validity claims are accepted by the receiver when he or she fulfills the intention of the speaker, even when the receiver doesn’t know these intentions. So: “Validity claims are accepted when a speech act successfully coordinates two actions.”(Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1363).

Clarification

An example of a speech act is a promise. A promise takes place when someone uses language to express his mental condition or state (his Intentional State) to a receiver. This person wants to declare (by expressing his mental condition) that he intends to do what the proposition of that promise requires. So this person links (and shows) his inner to the outside world, by using a speech act.

References

• Green, M. (2007). Speech acts. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gevonden op 4 oktober 2010, via http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/

• Searl, J.R. (1975) Indirect speech acts, in syntax and semantics vol 3. University of California: Berkeley. pages 59-82.

• Zierhofer, W. (2002). Speech acts and space(s): language pragmatics and the discursive constitution of the social. Environment and Planning A 2002, volume 34, pages 1355-1372

Contributors

• Page enhanced by Pauline van Heugten & Evelien Kuypers - ...

• Page enhanced by Lars Paardekooper - 26th of September 2012

• Page enhanced by Stefan Ramaker --StefanRamaker - 20:24, 23th of October 2012 (CEST)

• Page enhanced by--HennyLi - 21:28, 23th of October 2012 (CEST)

• Page enhanced by TeunVanDeVen - 14:15, 24th of October 2012 (CEST)

• Page enhanced, inter alia 'Clarification' by Iris van der Wal - 14:30, October 25th 2012