«zamonaviy lingvistika» fanidan «types and classification of speech acts»

2.1. The difference between both of the scholars’ Speech Acts recognized as an important source for studying
Speech-act theory was elaborated by Austin J. L. a linguist philosopher; this theory was the reaction of Austin and his coworkers in resistance to the alleged logical rationalist philosophers of linguistic communication. Austin in contrasts to logical positivism that could be assessed in footings of ‘truth’ and ‘falsity’ (‘known as truth conditional semantics’) was acute on the manner regular people use linguistic communication in mundane state of affairs. Furthermore. he was persuaded that we do non utilize linguistic communication to state merely things. intending to do statements. but besides to make things. that is to execute actions (Thomas. 1995: 28-31). This is the nucleus component of his theory.
Although. Searle accepts that the address act is both meaningful and has conventional force. he analyses the dimensions of the address act otherwise. The major difference is that Searle is contending a propositional act which is subdivided into a mention act and an act of postulation. In add-on. he besides speaks of the uncomplete address act of postulation which Austin did non reference. (ibid.:93). Therefore. the rating of Austin and Searle’s theories will exemplify the advantages and disadvantages but besides the spreads of its theory.
Austin’s Theory
Performatives & A; constantives The first distinction made by Austin referring the usage of linguistic communication is the categorization of verbs into performatives and constatives. He besides maintained that merely performative verbs are used to denote the actions; for illustration: I name this ship the King George. Whereas. the sentence I drive a ruddy auto is a constative 1. Constatives can be tested whether they are true or false. a phenomenon that does not happen in performatives because the vocalization I name this ship the King George do not do statement. Therefore, it can non be treated as being true or false. This sentence is best interpreted as executing an action. Therefore, a utile trial for performative verbs is the interpolation of the adverb hereby between capable and verb: I hereby name this ship the King George. whereas * I hereby drive a ruddy auto is uneven. ( ibid. : 32-3 & A ; Coulthard. 1996: 13 & A ; Stubbs. 1998: 154-5 ) .
Although. the performatives do non drop to the differentiation of true or false an in agreement process must be followed in order for performatives non to “go wrong” ( Thomas. 1995: 36 ) . Therefore. Austin has established four conditions. the alleged felicitousness conditions. which must be satisfied if the action performed is non to fail ( Brown et al. . 1996: 231 ) :