Speech Acts - a simple but important concept
What do you think language is used for?
The most common answer to this question might be ‘to convey information’. That is in fact one correct answer, but is that really all language is about?
What is the Speech Act theory?
John Searle's Speech Act theory (the concept first introduced by philosopher J.L. Austin) argues that besides describing the world around us, language can also be used to perform actions or to make other people perform certain actions.
To present every linguist’s first example: when you say ‘It is cold in this room.’ are you just describing the temperature you feel? Or are you maybe asking someone near the open window to close it?
Or when a judge reads out the jury’s decision, are they only relaying an opinion, or do their words dictate what will happen with the defendant? Isn’t it their words that make that sentence be?
Why do you need to know about speech acts on your year abroad?
As you might've guessed, speech acts can be used and realised differently depending on cultural norms and assumptions, and the bad news is, some features of British English are exceptions rather than the norm across cultures.
Picture taken from 202semantics's blog from WordPress (link embedded in picture)
We will share some more specific examples of these differences in following posts, but our aim now is to give you a broad idea of what speech acts are and why they are not just a matter of politeness. And so when someone from a different culture tells you something that you would usually phrase as a question, you don't immediately think they are being rude or trying to offend you and send them to superhell.
Searle's 5 types of Speech Acts:
(Useful to understand, but not something that is crucial to most, so feel free to scroll to the next section.)
So what types of speech acts do we differentiate according to the theory?
Assertives:
We use assertives to assert ideas, opinions and the like. This is how we present facts and claims like 'I rewatched Good Omens yesterday'.
Directives:
Directives are when a speaker is trying to direct someone else to do something. This can take multiple forms, like an order, a request or even offering advive. For example 'You should read some books by Terry Pratchett'.
Declarations:
Think of how a priest can declare two people husband and wife. Declaratives are expressions that can bring about a change in the world.
Expressives:
Here a speaker makes a statement about their own feelings and attitudes about something. For example, you can express an apology or gratitude. 'I appreciate that you warned me to bring tissues when watching the end of Good Omens season 2.'
Commissives:
When you commit to doing something in speech, that is a commussive speech act. This could involve a vow, a promise, a bet, etc. Like when you promise to not make your blorbo suffer anymore (even if we all know it is not going to happen).
Don't panic! This might all sound too complicated and not seem like something that will be of actual use to you. What is the point of knowing the names of things we do effortlessly every day, right? But now comes the interesting part, and the one that is relevant to us:
How are these speech acts actually realised? And how are they different depending on culture?
Remember that all 5 types of speech acts refer to functions that we use langauge for. They serve a specific purpose. (Academically, we would refer to these as illocutionary acts, if you'd like to read more about them.) Now comes the question: how are we going to achieve these purposes?
There are certain types of sentences we might use for certain types of purposes. This is a concept you might be more familiar with. To elicit an answer, you would generally use an interrogative sentence, that is, you would ask a question (Did you read the book?). To issue an order in a directive you would generally use an imperative sentence (Give me all your books!).
But is there only one way to achieve a purpose in speech? What happens when the type of sentence we use does not match its function?
The difference is what we call an Direct and Indirect Speech Acts.
A good way to demonstrate this is in how you would make a request. When the function of a sentence matches the purpose of it, we have a direct speech act:
But as a British student, aren't you more likely to make make this request through an indirect speech act, by using an interrogative sentence?
'Could you close the window?'
Picture taken from Arnold Zwicky's blog from WordPress (link embedded in picture)
You might've noticed that in the last point I wrote 'as a British student'. Did you think after reading the example something along the lines of 'isn't this just being polite?'. You are absolutely right in that accoring to British cultural values this is the polite way to make a request.
However, what is considered polite and impolite can differ starkly depending on culture. What you consider polite in English, might come across as downright condesceding in other languages and cultures. Moreover, differences in language use and the use of speech acts in this case have been shown to be caused by aspects of culture that run way deeper than merely politness (e.g. intimacy, spontaneity, directness, etc.).
Some great examples of such differences can be found in Wierzbicka's work about Polish vs English speech acts and she explains how English tends to place heavy restrictions on the use of imperative sentences, while using interrogative forms extensively. I sincerely recommend skimming through the article to help reflect on what a native British English speaker would find 'normal' in speech that speakers of other languages might not.
And this is all from us about speech acts - congratulations for making it to the end of this long post! This might've been more theory-heavy than some of our other posts with fun examples, but we hope it helps you approach those with a clearer perspective :)
