11,453 research outputs found

    Protest and Speech Act Theory

    Get PDF
    This paper attempts to explain what a protest is by using the resources of speech-act theory. First, we distinguish the object, redress, and means of a protest. This provided a way to think of atomic acts of protest as having dual communicative aspects, viz., a negative evaluation of the object and a connected prescription of redress. Second, we use Austin’s notion of a felicity condition to further characterize the dual communicative aspects of protest. This allows us to distinguish protest from some other speech acts which also involve a negative evaluation of some object and a connected prescription of redress. Finally, we turn to Kukla and Lance’s idea of a normative functionalist analysis of speech acts to advance the view that protests are a complex speech act constituted by dual input normative statuses and dual output normative statuses

    The Speech Act Theory between Linguistics and Language Philosophy

    Get PDF
    Of all the issues in the general theory of language usage, speech act theory has probably aroused the widest interest. Psychologists, for example, have suggested that the acquisition of the concepts underlying speech acts may be a prerequisite for the acquisition of language in general, literary critics have looked to speech act theory for an illumination of textual subtleties or for an understanding of the nature of literary genres, anthropologists have hoped to find in the theory some account of the nature of magical incantations, philosophers have seen potential applications to, amongst other things, the status of ethical statements, while linguists have seen the notions of speech act theory as variously applicable to problems in syntax, semantics, second language learning, and elsewhere.speech act theory, presupposition, implicature, deixis

    Triadic to Trinitarian: Kevin J. Vanhoozer’s Application of J.L. Austin’s Speech Act Theory

    Get PDF
    The basis for Christian theology, the Bible, has come under considerable attack by decontructionalists in their attempt to disregard authorial intent and to prove that understanding the meaning of an author\u27s words is an impossible task. Kevin J. Vanhoozer is an evangelical scholar who has done much in defense of authorial intent and has found fertile philosophical ground in Speech Act theory. This essay looks at Vanhoozer’s use of J.L. Austin’s variety of Speech Act theory to determine if Vanhoozer uses Austin correctly, then turns to Vanhoozer’s bibliological use of Austin whereby he analogically applies Austin’s Triadic formula of a speech act to the Trinitarian formula of the inspiration and interpretation of Scripture

    To Hell with Speech Act Theory

    No full text
    During the last few years semantics, too, has had its own paradigm clash. Whereas according to all theories belonging to the old, and still best developed tradition of realistic, objectivist, or correlational semantics, meanings are to be considered as certain entities, there is now a relatively new approach, which invites us to look at the meanings of signs as consisting of nothing else but their use. Thelocus classicus of this other, essentially pragmatically oriented paradigm is clearly Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Now, in order to have but the tiniest chance of being able, some day, to compare the alleged merits of this new paradigm with the established benefits of the old one, we are, as at least nowadays most of us would agree, in strong need of something which goes far beyond the Wittgensteinian hints as to what a workable account of meaning-as-use might look like. Is this need fulfilled by the so-called theory of speech acts? Have the speech act theoreticians really helped us a reasonable step forward -- as many adherents of the new paradigm had hoped, and some of the leading speech act theoreticians themselves had at least thought they would? Contrary to what I take to be the majority opinion in present-day philosophy, I think that, in fact, they have not

    Semantics and Conversations for an Agent Communication Language

    Full text link
    We address the issues of semantics and conversations for agent communication languages and the Knowledge Query Manipulation Language (KQML) in particular. Based on ideas from speech act theory, we present a semantic description for KQML that associates ``cognitive'' states of the agent with the use of the language's primitives (performatives). We have used this approach to describe the semantics for the whole set of reserved KQML performatives. Building on the semantics, we devise the conversation policies, i.e., a formal description of how KQML performatives may be combined into KQML exchanges (conversations), using a Definite Clause Grammar. Our research offers methods for a speech act theory-based semantic description of a language of communication acts and for the specification of the protocols associated with these acts. Languages of communication acts address the issue of communication among software applications at a level of abstraction that is useful to the emerging software agents paradigm.Comment: Also in in "Readings in Agents", Michael Huhns and Munindar Singh (eds), Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, In

    Strategies Leaders Should Use to Respond to Hostile Questions Regarding Organizational Changes: An Empirical Investigation

    Get PDF
    The purpose of this research was to develop a tool, using Speech Act Theory, which will help leaders better handle hostile questions they face during organizational change. Specifically, speech act theory, which outlines five question-response strategies, was used to test the effectiveness of question responses to hostile questions encountered during organizational change

    The Speech Act Theory between Linguistics and Language Philosophy

    Get PDF
    Of all the issues in the general theory of language usage, speech act theory has probably aroused the widest interest. Psychologists, forexample, have suggested that the acquisition of the concepts underlying speech acts may be a prerequisite for the acquisition of language in general,literary critics have looked to speech act theory for an illumination of textual subtleties or for an understanding of the nature of literary genres,anthropologists have hoped to find in the theory some account of the nature of magical incantations, philosophers have seen potential applications to,amongst other things, the status of ethical statements, while linguists have seen the notions of speech act theory as variously applicable to problemsin syntax, semantics, second language learning, and elsewhere

    Are You Speaking? : A Speech Act Analysis of Pinter\u27s \u3ci\u3eA Kind of Alaska\u3c/i\u3e and \u3ci\u3eNo Man\u27s Land\u3c/i\u3e

    Get PDF
    My purpose, however, lies not only in a desire to contribute insight to the critical canon on Pinter. I also wish to offer some insight into the literary application of speech act theory. Among the writers I will discuss are Austin, Searle, Altieri, Pratt, Derrida, and Fish. This application leads to my belief that drama is the literary genre to which speech act theory is most appropriate and applicable (in much the same way as the poem serves as the New Critical model). I will begin with a brief introduction to speech act theory, move on to my analysis of the plays, make general inferences about the plays and the theory, and then reach for conclusions

    Group Support Systems and the Speech Act Theory

    Get PDF
    The Speech Act Theory and Language/Action Model provide a useful perspective for understanding how people use communication to coordinate group activities. This paper presents an overview of the Speech Act Theory and the Language/Action model. The limitations of the Language/Action model as a Group Support System (GSS) model are highlighted. Possible modifications and directions for future researchare suggeste
    • …
    corecore