Speech act

From Geography

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 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 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)

A speech act implies a certain expectation of a reaction (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1355). For instance: you make a joke, to make somebody smile. Or you ask 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 do something with words, or other ways to make something clear, for instance with signs or utterances, we try to influence a subsequent action by execute a speech act (Zierhofer, 2002). A few examples to understand "speech act" in a more practical way are: to offer, to demand, to advertise, to order, to accept, to promise, to cancel, to withdraw, to declare, to judge, to criticize, to describe, to explain (Zierhofer, 2002, 1361). Someone says something in one of these ways to get something done. It is not about the words that are spoken, it is about their meaning(s).

A speech act differs from other actions because of the fact 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 reaction of the receiver is an importent element of the intention of the speech act. “Therefore, the intentions of speech acts entail other actions, forming units of interaction, of social activity.” (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1361). So language is not only an instrument of representation, but it also is an instrument to coordinate and regulate actions (Zierhofer, 2002, p. 1362).

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 possible 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 discusseb above cooresponds to the phenomenological conception insofar as the unity of actions is determined by the intentions of the actor. But according to Derrida, there is no fixed point for meaning available. In other words, speech acts are always time- and context related. A certain 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).

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

• Edited by Pauline van Heugten & Evelien Kuypers
• Page edited by Lars Paardekooper 26 September 2012
• Page enhanced by Stefan Ramaker --StefanRamaker 20:24, 23 October 2012 (CEST)
• Page edited by--HennyLi 21:28, 23 October 2012 (CEST)