I.

Speech Act Theory

Speech act theory is a key concept in pragmatics, shows us that language does more than
just create meanings - it helps us perform actions through words.

J.L. Austin showed that when people speak, they don't just make statements - they actually
do things.

Traditionally, the attitude towards language was based on three assumptions

 the basic sentence type is declarative, that it is a statement of assertion

 the principal use of language is to describe states of affairs by using statements.
 meaning of utterances can be described in terms of their truth or falsity

Searle pointed out that when we communicate, we're not just using individual words or
sentences - we're performing whole speech acts.

Searle proposed that for a speech act to function correctly, certain “felicity conditions”
must be met. These are the contextual and social requirements that ensure an utterance achieves
its intended effect.

Searle broke down speech acts into five main categories that we use in everyday
communication:

- Representatives: These are the "telling it like it is" statements. When you say "It's raining
outside," you're simply stating a fact about the world.
- Directives: This is when you're trying to get someone to do something. It could be as
direct as "Hand me that book" or as gentle as "Would you mind closing the window?"
- Commissives: These are the "I give you my word" types of statements. When you say
"I'll pick you up at 8," you're committing yourself to a future action.
- Expressives: These are all about sharing feelings or emotions. Saying "Thanks so much!"
or "I'm really sorry about that" falls into this category.
- Declarations: These are the powerful statements that change reality just by being spoken -
but only when said by someone with the right authority. Think of a judge saying "I
sentence you to..." or an officiant declaring "I now pronounce you married."

One of Searle's key insights was about indirect speech acts => when we say one thing but
mean another. We do this all the time in everyday conversation.

The key takeaway from Searle's work is that language isn't just about words but about
actions and intentions that are deeply rooted in our social world. This theory helps us understand
that language functions within social situations, meaning the context, the speaker, and the
listener all influence the meaning of words.

II. Three dimensions of speech acts

Three dimensions:
  locution
 illocution
 perlocution

This framework was first introduced by Austin in 1962, later refined by Searle in 1969, and
further explained by Yule in 1996.

The three dimensions of speech acts are inherently interconnected. This relationship can be
understood through the communicative process where a speaker (S) conveys a message to a
hearer (H), performs an action through that conveyance, and consequently influences the hearer's
response. The interplay between these levels manifests in how an utterance functions within
communication.

2.1. Locutionary Act (hành vi tạo lời)

The act of saying something with a specific meaning. To be more specific, when one
makes a meaningful utterance in terms of lexis, grammar, and pronunciation, he/she performs a
locutionary act. In other words, it is concerned with what is said by a speaker.

2.2. Illocutionary Force (hành vi tại lời)

The intention behind the utterance, such as making a request

2.3. Perlocutionary Effect (hành vi mượn lời)

Perlocutionary is a term in the theory of speech acts to refer to an act performed by making
an utterance which intrinsically involves an effect on the behavior, belief, feeling, etc., of a
listener. Examples of perlocutionary acts include frightening, insulting, persuading. A distinction
may be drawn between the intended and the actual perlocutionary effect of an utterance.

III. IFIDs (Các phương tiện chỉ dẫn hiệu lực ở lời)

How can speakers assume that the intended illocutionary force will be recognized by the
hearer? That question has been addressed by considering two things:

Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) (Các phương tiện chỉ dẫn hiệu lực ở lời)

Felicity conditions (Điều kiện hữu hiệu)

In speech-act theory, illocutionary force refers to a speaker's intention in delivering an

utterance or to the kind of illocutionary act the speaker is performing. Also known as an
illocutionary function or illocutionary point.

3.1. Definition

Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) are supposed to be elements, or aspects of

linguistic devices which indicate either that the utterance is made with certain illocutionary
force, or else that it constitutes the performance of a certain illocutionary act.
 IFIDs: are linguistic markers that explicitly signal the illocutionary force of an utterance,
helping the listener understand the type of speech act being performed (Yule, 1996).

These devices are essential in speech act theory, first introduced by J.L. Austin (1962)
and later developed by John Searle (1969).

=> IFIDs are linguistic elements used to convey the interrogative force of a sentence. In
pragmatics, IFIDs play a crucial role in signaling that a statement is intended as a question.
These devices can include intonation patterns, question words (e.g., who, what, where), and
auxiliary verbs (e.g., do, can, will) that indicate a question is being asked.

3.2. Key characteristics of IFIDs

Horn & Ward (2006) explain that IFIDs appear in different forms, including:

● Performative verbs (e.g., "promise," "apologize," "declare")

● Intonation and stress (e.g., rising vs. falling pitch)
● Modal expressions (e.g., "must," "should," "can")
● Sentence structure and word order
● Punctuation

- Performative utterances: utterances that perform a speech act and explicitly describe the
intended speech act

- Constative utterances: utterances that perform a speech act without explicitly describe the
intended speech act

+ Performative verbs:

A performative, unlike a constative, cannot be true or false constative (it can only be felicitious
or infelicitous)

3.3. Function

According to Yule (1996), IFIDs provide explicit clues about the function of an utterance, such
as whether it is a command, a request, a promise, or an apology. Mey (2001) emphasizes that
IFIDs help reduce ambiguity by indicating the speaker’s communicative intention.

These markers help distinguish speech acts such as requests, commands, declarations, and
apologies (Mey, 2001).

4. Felicity Conditions

4.1. Definition

Felicity Conditions are the necessary contextual and situational conditions that must be met for
a speech act to be successfully performed and understood. The concept was introduced by J.L.
Austin (1962) in How to Do Things with Words and later refined by John Searle (1969) in
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
According to Austin, if these conditions are not met, the speech act may be infelicitous (i.e.,
inappropriate or unsuccessful).

Ex: I sentence you to six months in prison.

The performance will be infelicitious (inappropriate) if the speaker is not a specific person
in a special context (in this case, a judge in a courtroom).

4.2. Function

Felicity conditions help determine whether an utterance truly performs the intended action.

4.3. Categories of Felicity Conditions

Yule (1996, 50) proposes further classification of felicity conditions into five classes
(1) General conditions
o presuppose the participants’ knowledge of the language being used and his
non-playacting
(2) Content conditions
o the appropriate content of an utterance
(3) Preparatory conditions
o differences of various illocutionary acts
(4) Sincerity conditions
o speaker’s intention to carry out a certain act
(5) Essential conditions
o combine with a specification of what must be in the utterance content, the
context, and the speaker’s intentions, in order for a specific act to be appropriately
(felicitously) performed

V. Performative Hypothesis (Giả thuyết ngữ vi)

5.1. Performative hypothesis introduction

"The performative hypothesis suggests that certain utterances do not merely describe the
world but actively bring about a change in the world by the very act of being spoken." (Austin,
1962)

"The performative hypothesis posits that speech acts such as promises, orders, and
declarations do not just communicate information but perform an action in themselves." (Searle,
1969)

"Under the performative hypothesis, it is assumed that every declarative sentence

implicitly contains a performative verb that makes explicit the intended illocutionary force of the
utterance." (Levinson, 1983)

"The performative hypothesis is an attempt to prove that language is a means, not just of
saying things, but of doing things, i.e., of producing changes in the world." (Manuel Padilla
Cruz, 2006)
 “One way to think about the speech acts being performed via utterances is to assume that
underlying every utterance (U) there is a clause, containing a performative verb (Vp) which
makes the illocutionary force explicit. This is known as the performative hypothesis” (George
Yule, 1995)

5.2. Format

The basic format of the underlying clause is shown in [1].

[1] I (hereby) Vp you (that) U

In this clause:
The subject must be first-person singular ("I").
The adverb “hereby” shows that the utterance itself is an action.
A performative verb (Vp) is used in the present tense.
The indirect object is second-person singular ("you".)

5.2.1. Explicit vs. Implicit performatives (ngữ vi tường minh và ngữ vi hàm ẩn)

Thomas (1995: 47) defines an explicit performative as: “[…] a mechanism which allows
the speaker to remove any possibility of misunderstanding the force behind an utterance”.

The difference between explicit and implicit performatives lies not so much in meaning,
but in other elements that make it sometimes necessary to choose either one or the other.

This choice depends mainly on the context; and choosing one or other alternative may
imply that there is some kind of requirement “[…] that a specific form of language be used, […]
while others imply a stylistic difference (e.g. in the degree of formality conveyed) or imply a
difference in emphasis”. (Thomas, 1995: 47-48).

Thomas (1995: 48) also provides the following examples:

(i) I apologize.

(ii) I’m sorry.

And she explains that the main difference between these two sentences seems to be a
difference in the degree of formality; i.e., the performative utterance (i) is used in contexts in
which a higher degree of formality is required. Its use may also depend on the reason that causes
the speaker to have to issue utterance (i); i.e., the reason that leads the speaker to issue (i) may be
of a greater magnitude than that which causes the speaker of (ii) to issue utterance (ii). Thus, a
higher degree of formality is required in the case of utterance (i).

On the other hand, however formal “I apologize” may be, Thomas explains that “I’m
sorry” appears to be more sincere, probably because it is a description of the feelings of the
speaker, and that might be what endows “I’m sorry” with its quality of sincerity.

Thomas (1995: 48) gives further arguments that illustrate the difference between explicit
and implicit performatives:
 “[…] we often find that a speaker will first try an implicit performative and move onto an
explicit performative only if the first attempt fails. People often avoid using an explicit
performative since in many circumstances it seems to imply an unequal power relationship or a
particular set of rights on the part of the speaker”.

5.2.2. The “hereby” test

Austin (1962: 57), explains that

[…] The word “hereby” is often and perhaps can always be inserted; this serves to indicate
that the utterance (in writing) of the sentence is, as it is said, the instrument affecting the act of
warning, authorising, etc. “Hereby” is a useful criterion that the utterance is performative.

If “hereby” is not inserted, the utterance could be taken to be “the description of what
usually happens” (Austin, 1962: 58).

Thomas agrees with Austin in saying that the ‘hereby’ test is useful; however, she specifies
that it is “not infallible” (Thomas, 1995: 32).

With regard to Levison (1983), he points out that the adverb “hereby” can only occur with
the performative usages of performative verbs.

5.3. Performative hypothesis’ advantages

The advantage of this type of analysis is that it makes clear just what elements are involved
in the production and interpretation of utterances. In syntax, a reflexive pronoun (like ‘myself’ in
[3]) requires the occurrence of an antecedent (in this case ‘I’) within the same sentence structure.
The explicit performative in [3b.] provides the ‘I’ element. Similarly, when you say to someone,
‘Do it yourself!’, the reflexive in ‘yourself’ is made possible by the antecedent ‘you’ in the
explicit version (‘I order you that you do it yourself’). Another advantage is to show that some
adverbs such as ‘honestly’, or adverbial clauses such as ‘because I may be late’, as shown in [4],
naturally attach to the explicit performative clause rather than the implicit version.

[4]
a. Honestly, he’s a scoundrel.
b. What time is it, because I may be late?

In [4a.], it is the telling part (the performative verb) that is being done ‘honestly’ and, in
[4b.], it is the act of asking (the performative again) that is being justified by the ‘because I may
be late’ clause.

VI. Speech act classification

One popular way of classifying speech acts among others is doing that by function. Searle
(1976) introduced one of the most influential and widely-accepted classification of speech acts.

Searle’s classification mentions five broad types: commissives, declarations, directives,

expressives, and representatives.
 Searle categorizes speech acts into five types based on their function and how they relate
to the world:

They can be summarized as follows:

6.1. Declarations - Tuyên bố: Gồm tuyên bố, tuyên án, buộc tội

These are words and expressions that change the world by their very utterance. They
usually need to be uttered by a speaker of a special institutional role. Examples include: “I
hereby pronounce you man and wife” or “This court sentences you to ten years in prison”. (Yule,
1996: 53)

Declarations: Speech acts that bring about a change in the world through the act of speaking
(e.g., excommunication, naming, pronouncing).

Example:

a. Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.

b. Jury Foreman: We find the defendant guilty.

→ In using a declaration, the speaker changes the world via words.

6.2. Representatives - Trình bày (biểu hiện/miêu tả/xác tín)

These are acts in which the words state what the speaker believes to be the case. These
allow the speaker to assert, confirm or describe something. Typical functions of this group
include describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, and disagreeing.

Statements of fact, assertions, conclusions, and descriptions, are all examples of the
speaker representing the world as he or she believes it is. (Yule, 1996: 53)

Example:

a. The earth is flat.

b. It was a warm sunny day.

→ In using a representative, the speaker makes words fit the world (of belief).

6.3. Commissives - Cam kết: Gồm hứa, cam đoan, cam kết, đảm bảo, thỏa thuận…

This group includes acts in which the speaker commits him/ herself to doing something
with words. Typical functions of this group are promising, offering, threatening, refusing,
vowing, and volunteering.

They express what the speaker intends. They are promises, threats, refusals, and pledges,
and they can be performed by the speaker alone, or by the speaker as a member of a group.
(Yule, 1996: 54)
Commissives: Speech acts where the speaker commits to a future action (e.g., promises, offers,
pledges).

Example: "I will help you."

Fit: "Words to world" (the words commit to changing the world).

Example:

a. I’ll be back.

b. We will not do that.

→ In using a commissive, the speaker undertakes to make the world fit the words (via the
speaker).

6.4. Directives - Điều khiển: Gồm ra lệnh, sai, sai khiến, yêu cầu, đề nghị, xin phép, hỏi,
khuyên v.v…

This category covers acts in which the words uttered by the speaker are aimed at making
the hearer do something. For example, directives can be used to perform commanding,
requesting, inviting, forbidding, suggesting, advising, and questioning. They express what the
speaker wants. They are commands, orders, requests, and suggestions, and they can be positive
or negative. (Yule, 1996: 54)

Directives: Speech acts that aim to direct the hearer to perform an action (e.g., orders, requests,
commands).

Example: "Shut the door."

Fit: "Words to world" (the words aim to change the world).

Example:

a. Could you lend me a pen, please?

b. Don't touch that.

→ In using a directive, the speaker attempts to make the world fit the words (via the

hearer).

6.5. Expressives - Biểu cảm: Gồm than, than thở, cảm ơn, xin lỗi, khen, chê

This last group includes acts in which the words state what the speaker feels. In other
words, it is used to express the speaker’s strong emotion. Representatives of the group include
apologizing, praising, congratulating, regretting, accepting, rejecting, and so on.

Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They express
psychological states and can be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow. They
can be caused by something the speaker does or the hearer does, but they are about the speaker's
experience. (Yule, 1996: 53)

Expressives: Speech acts that express the speaker's psychological state (e.g., apologies, thanks,
congratulations).

Example: "I’m sorry for your loss."

Fit: No clear directionality; they express emotions.

Example:

a. I'm really sorry!

b. Congratulations!

→ In using an expressive, there is no clear directionality; they express emotions

VII. Speech Act Verbs and Indirect speech acts (Động từ hành động nói và hành động nói
gián tiếp)

7.1. Definition and Classification

Focus: The discussion primarily centers on directives, commissives, and declarations, which are
often associated with speech act verbs (SAVs).

Types of Speech Act Verbs

Speech act verbs can be categorized based on the type of action they describe. Searle classified
speech acts into five main categories, each associated with specific verbs:

1. Assertives (Representatives):
○ These verbs describe acts of stating, asserting, or describing something.
○ Examples: claim, state, assert, report, describe, conclude.
○ Example sentence: "She claimed that the meeting was canceled."
2. Directives:
○ These verbs describe acts aimed at getting the listener to do something.
○ Examples: ask, request, order, command, invite, advise.
○ Example sentence: "He asked her to close the door."
3. Commissives:
○ These verbs describe acts that commit the speaker to a future action.
○ Examples: promise, offer, pledge, vow, guarantee.
○ Example sentence: "I promise to finish the project by tomorrow."
4. Expressives:
○ These verbs describe acts that express the speaker's feelings or emotions.
○ Examples: apologize, thank, congratulate, complain, sympathize.
○ Example sentence: "She apologized for being late."
5. Declaratives (Declarations):
○ These verbs describe acts that bring about a change in the external situation
 through speech.
○ Examples: declare, nominate, resign, baptize, pronounce.
○ Example sentence: "The judge declared the defendant guilty."

7.2. Speech Act Verbs and Performativity

7.2.1. Speech Act Verbs (SAVs)

Speech Act Verbs (SAVs) are lexical items that denote specific types of speech acts, such as
promising, ordering, requesting, or declaring. However, not all speech acts are represented by a
single, specific SAV. In many cases, a single speech act can be accomplished through a variety
of indirect expressions, which may not explicitly include the corresponding SAV. This flexibility
in language allows speakers to convey their intentions in nuanced and context-dependent ways.

7.2.2. Performative Verbs

Performative verbs are a subset of SAVs that have the unique property of performing the action
they describe simply by being uttered in the appropriate context. When a speaker uses a
performative verb, the act of speaking itself constitutes the performance of the action denoted by
the verb.

Context Dependency of Performative Verbs

The performative nature of a verb can depend heavily on the context in which it is used. The
same verb may function as a performative in one context but as a non-performative in another.

Authority Requirement for Performative Verbs

Certain performative verbs require that the speaker possess a specific authority or social role for
the utterance to be valid. Without the appropriate authority, the speech act may fail to achieve its
intended effect.

Denial Within the Sentence

Interestingly, some speech acts can be performed even when the speaker appears to deny or
downplay their intention. This phenomenon demonstrates the complexity of indirect
communication and the subtle ways in which speech acts can be embedded within utterances.

Speech Acts Without Explicit SAVs

Some speech acts are expressed without the use of explicit SAVs. Instead, they rely on
contextual cues, intonation, or other linguistic strategies to convey their intended meaning.

7.3. Indirect Speech Acts

7.3.1. Definition

Indirect speech acts occur when the intended meaning of an utterance is not directly encoded in
the words themselves. Instead, the speaker relies on implicature, context, and shared knowledge
to convey their intended meaning. Indirect speech acts are a common feature of everyday
communication, allowing speakers to achieve their goals in a polite or contextually appropriate
manner.

7.3.2. Recognition of Indirect Speech Acts

The recognition of indirect speech acts often depends on the listener's ability to infer the
speaker's intended meaning based on context, tone, and shared knowledge. This process requires
a degree of pragmatic competence, as the literal meaning of the utterance may differ significantly
from its intended function.

7.3.3. Searle’s Ten-Step Method for Interpreting Indirect Speech Acts

Searle outlines a pragmatic process for understanding indirect speech acts:

1. A suggests an action (going to the movies).

2. A assumes B is cooperative and relevant.

3. Relevant responses include acceptance, rejection, or counter-suggestion.

4. B’s response does not fit these categories directly.

5. B likely implies more than the literal meaning.

6. Studying for an exam requires time.

7. Going to the movies would conflict with studying.

8. Proposals require the hearer’s ability and willingness to comply.

9. B likely cannot accept the proposal due to lack of ability or willingness.

10. Therefore, B is indirectly rejecting A’s proposal.

7.3.4. Pragmatic View

Pragmatics is concerned with the practical aspects of meaning, going beyond the literal or
structural interpretation of language to consider the intentions, assumptions, and situational
context of speakers and listeners.

The ability to interpret and use language appropriately depends heavily on context, including
understanding politeness, power dynamics, and cultural norms is known as pragmatic
competence.

Speech Acts and Speech Act Verbs are also nearly impossible to classify, and setting a criteria
for “performativity” is highly inadequate. Everything depends on context, and it requires a
lifetime of experience to truly understand the nuances.
VIII. Speech Event

8.1. Definition
 A speech event is a structured communicative interaction involving language to achieve a
specific goal.
 "A speech event is an activity in which participants interact via language in some
conventional way to arrive at some outcome"
 Occur in socially recognized situations (meetings, ceremonies, classroom discussions).
 Involve multiple speech acts.
 Participants have defined roles and relationships.

8.2. Difference Between Speech Acts and Speech Events

A speech act refers to a single communicative action performed through words, such as
making a request, giving a promise, or offering an apology (Yule, 1996).

8.3. Components of Speech Events (SPEAKING Model – Hymes, 1974)

Dell Hymes (1974) introduced the SPEAKING model, which provides a comprehensive
framework for analyzing speech events by identifying eight key elements: Setting, Participants,
Ends, Act Sequence, Key, Instrumentalities, Norms, and Genre.

S – Setting and Scene: This refers to the physical location and social context in which
the interaction takes place. The setting can influence the formality and tone of the speech
event.
Example: A courtroom is a formal setting with specific rules governing speech, while a
family dinner is an informal setting with relaxed norms.

P – Participants: The roles of the speaker, listener, and other individuals involved in the
speech event. Participants often have different roles and responsibilities depending on the
context.
Example: In a classroom, the teacher acts as the speaker and authority figure, while
students are listeners and knowledge receivers.

E – Ends: The purpose or goal of the interaction. Ends can refer to both the immediate
and long-term outcomes of the speech event.
Example: In a business meeting, the goal is to make decisions or provide updates.

A – Act Sequence: The order of the speech acts that occur during the event. This
sequence is often essential for maintaining coherence.
Example: In a debate, the act sequence includes opening statements, rebuttals, and
closing arguments.

K – Key: The tone, manner, or mood of the communication, which can be serious,
humorous, formal, or casual.
Example: A farewell speech may be solemn and reflective, while a wedding toast may
be cheerful and celebratory.
 I – Instrumentalities: The medium (spoken, written, or gestural) and the style of
language used (formal, informal).
Example: A graduation speech is delivered orally in formal language.

N – Norms: The social rules governing the interaction. These norms dictate what is
considered appropriate behavior in the context of the speech event.
Example: In a lecture, students are expected to listen silently and take notes rather than
interrupt the speaker.

G – Genre: The type of speech event, such as a lecture, debate, storytelling, or interview.
Example: A political debate is a distinct genre with formal rules for turn-taking and
rebuttals.

8.4. Indirect Request as a Speech Event

An indirect request is a key example of how speech events unfold through multiple
related speech acts. Yule (1996, p. 57) explains that indirect requests often involve checking
preconditions before making a direct request. This strategy helps reduce the risk of imposition or
refusal by allowing the hearer to respond without pressure. Indirect requests rely on preparatory
conditions and content conditions to determine whether the request is appropriate.
- Preparatory Condition: The speaker assumes that the hearer is capable of performing
the action.
Example: "Can you open the window?" implies that the listener has the ability to do so.
- Content Condition: The action concerns a future event that the hearer is expected to
perform.
Example: "Could you send me the report by Friday?" implies that the report will be sent
in the future.

8.5. Importance of Speech Event Analysis

 Help understand real-life communication.

 Improve cross-cultural awareness.
 Enhance pragmatic competence.