4 ms·
Do you agree with Searle's classification of speech acts into five different types? Or would you use a different way to classify them?
by tangled_zans 10y ago
Do you agree with Searle's classification of speech acts into five different types? Or would you use a different way to classify them?
- emdd 10y agoI find taxonomy useful, but I think Derrida is right that Searle was more preoccupied making SAT (and language in general) into a mathematical formula than the "art" of language. I think the only really crucial elements are: - locutions - illocution (act/force and [or vs] intent) - perlocution (act/force and [or vs] intent) I find very little use teaching or using the 5 categories of Searle for interpretation of verbal or written speech acts. I find studying a locution from illocutionary intent or perlocutionary intent more useful than Assertive, Directive, etc. Hope it made sense and it was a useful answer! I still find it a fascinating field that is under-utilized because people try to make it into a programming language (a la Searle) instead of a way to understand semantics and semantic intent.
- tangled_zans 10y agoThank you for your insights, this has been useful! (I was actually hoping to ask this to a linguist for some time now, so I was happy when I saw your message!) You surmised my current situation well, I've been focusing a lot on the 5 categories and little on the locutions. I shall remedy that :) One thing in your answer that I'm a bit fuzzy on is what you meant by the confusing thing in the brackets (act/force and [or vs] intent)?