Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Lodz Papers in Pragmatics

Founded by Cap, Piotr

Editor-in-Chief: Chilton, Paul / Kopytowska, Monika


CiteScore 2018: 0.79

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.197
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.787

Online
ISSN
1898-4436
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Speech acts and the autonomy of linguistic pragmatics

Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka
Published Online: 2009-07-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0008-8

Speech acts and the autonomy of linguistic pragmatics

This paper comments on selected problems of the definition of linguistic pragmatics with a focus on notions associated with speech act theory in the tradition of John Langshaw Austin. In more detail it concentrates on the (ir)relevance of the use of the Austinian categorisation into locution, illocution, and perlocution in locating a divide in between pragmatics and semantics, and especially the distinction between the locutionary act and the illocutionary act and its implications for the definition of pragmatics and its separation from the semantic theory.

The relation between form and meaning is further briefly reviewed against dichotomies including the Gricean and neo-Gricean ‘what is said’ versus ‘what is implicated’ or meant, between what can be ‘locuted’, but not said, and what can be said, but not asserted. These dichotomies are related to the theoretical commitments as to the accepted operative forces in speech acts, primarily convention and intention. It is suggested that, roughly, the development of the speech act theory can be viewed as a process by which the theory moves away from its originally sociolinguistic orientation towards a more psychologistic account, which in turn leads towards diminishing the role of (traditional) semantics and the subsequent juxtaposition of pragmatics and syntax rather than pragmatics and semantics.

Keywords: speech act; pragmatics; semantics; illocution; locution; John L. Austin

  • Allwood, Jens. "A Critical Look at Speech Act Theory" In Logic, Pragmatics and Grammar edited by Dahl, 53-99. Lund: Studentlitteatur, 1977.Google Scholar

  • Austin, John. Philosophical Papers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960.Google Scholar

  • Austin, John. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962/1975 2nd ed.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent. "You don't say?" Synthese 127 (2001): 11-31.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Kent and Robert Harnish. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1979.Google Scholar

  • Barker, Stephen. Renewing Meaning: A Speech-Act Theoretic Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Barker, Stephen. "Semantics Beyond the Distinction between Sense and Force". In John Searle's Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning and Mind, edited by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 190-210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

  • Borg, Emma. Minimal Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Borg, Emma. "Saying what you mean: Unarticulated constituents and communication" In Ellipsis and Nonsentential Speech. Edited by R. Elugardo & R. Stainton, 237-262. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005, doi: 10.1007/1-4020-2301-4_13.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex". Routledge, New York, London, 1993.Google Scholar

  • Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. Routledge, New York, London, 1997.Google Scholar

  • Cappellen, Herman & Ernie Lepore. Insensitive Semantics. A defence of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005.Google Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. Thoughts and utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002.Google Scholar

  • Carston, Robyn. "Linguistic Communication and the semantics/pragmatics distinction" Synthese. Vol. 165/3 (2008), 321-346, doi: 10.1007/s11229-007-9191-8.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dekret z dnia 12 grudnia 1981 r. o stanie wojennym (Decree on martial law in Poland of 12 December 1981). Dz.U. 1981 nr 29 poz. 154. http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19810290154

  • Gazdar, Gerald. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar

  • Grice, Herbert P. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

  • Harnish, Robert M. "Internalism and externalism in speech act theory". Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. Special Issue on Speech Actions, edited by Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka & Maciej Witek. 5.1 (2009; this volume): 9-31, doi: 10.2478/v10016-009-0001-2.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Horn, Laurence R. "More issues in neo- and post-Gricean pragmatics". Intercultural Pragmatics. 3.1 (2006): 81-93, doi: 10.1515/IP.2006.004.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hornsby, Jennifer. "Feminism in Philosophy of Language: Communicative Speech Acts". In: The Cambridge Companion to Feminism in Philosophy, edited by Miranda Fricker & Jennifer Hornsby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 87-106, 2000.Google Scholar

  • Kalisz, Roman. Pragmatyka językowa [Linguistics Pragmatics]. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 1993.Google Scholar

  • Katz, Jerald. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force. New York: Crowell, 1977.Google Scholar

  • Kearns, John T. "Conditional assertion, denial, and supposition as illocutionary acts". Linguistics and Phillosophy 29 (4) 2006, 455-485, doi: 10.1007/s10988-006-0007-y.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kissine, Mikhail. "Illocutionary Forces and What is Said" Mind & Language, Vol. 24, No. 1 (2009), 122-138, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2008.01356.x.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Korta, Kepa and John Perry. "How to say things with words". In John Searle's Philosophy of Language: Force, Meaning and Mind, edited by Savas L. Tsohatzidis, 169-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

  • Levinson, Stephen. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar

  • Millikan, Ruth. "Proper function and convention in speech acts." In Language: A Biological Model, 139-165. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, doi: 10.1093/0199284768.003.0008.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Morris, Charles. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1938.Google Scholar

  • Neale, Stephen. 2007 "Heavy Hands, Magic, and Scene-Reading Traps" EUJAP, Vol. 3, No. 2, 77-132.Google Scholar

  • Perry, John. Reference and Reflexivity. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2001.Google Scholar

  • Recanati, François. "What is said." Synthese 128 (2001): 75-91.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Recanati, François. "Does linguistic communication rest on inference?" Mind and Language 17 (2002): 105-126, doi: 10.1111/1468-0017.00191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Recanati, François. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

  • Sadock, Jerrold. Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar

  • Sbisà Marina. "Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use". Journal of Pragmatics 33 (2001): 1791-1814. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sbisà Marina. "Speech acts in context." Language and Communication 22 (2002): 421-436, doi: 10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sbisà Marina. "How to read Austin". Pragmatics 17 (2007): 461-473.Google Scholar

  • Sbisà Marina. "Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution" Lodz Papers in Pragmatics. Special Issue on Speech Actions, edited by Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka & Maciej Witek. 5.1 (2009; this volume): 33-52, doi: 10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Searle, John (1969) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

  • Searle, John Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar

  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. London: Blackwell, 1986/1995.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert C. "Pragmatics" In: G. Harman and D. Davidson (eds.): Semantics of Natural Language, 380-397, Dordrecht: Reidel, 1972.Google Scholar

  • Stalnaker, Robert. "Assertion." In Syntax and Semantics 9: Pragmatics, Peter Cole, 315-332. New York: Academic Press, 1978, doi: 10.1093/0198237073.003.0005.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Strawson, Peter F. "Intention and convention in speech acts." Philosophical Review 73 (1964): 439-460, doi: 10.2307/2183301.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Verschueren, Jeff, Understanding Pragmatics, London and New York: Arnold, 1999.Google Scholar

  • Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Speech Acts in English Legal Texts, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Lodz, Poland, 2001.Google Scholar

About the article


Published Online: 2009-07-06

Published in Print: 2009-01-01


Citation Information: Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 85–106, ISSN (Online) 1898-4436, ISSN (Print) 1895-6106, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0008-8.

Export Citation

This content is open access.

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Iwona Witczak-Plisiecka and Maciej Witek
Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 2009, Volume 5, Number 1, Page 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in