Speech Act Theory: Development, Structure, And Classifications (Through Examples from Oliver Twist)

Аннотация

The object of this research is the theory of speech acts as a key component of pragmatic linguistics. The article investigates the evolution and structure of speech act theory, tracing its development from the foundational ideas of J.L. Austin — particularly the distinction between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts — to J.R. Searle’s refinements involving propositional content and felicity conditions. Central notions explored include illocutionary force, communicative intention, and the classification of speech acts based on their function and effect. The study further reviews the contributions of modern scholars such as D. Wunderlich, G.G. Pocheptsov, G. Leech, and others, who expanded the traditional categories by introducing additional types (e.g., erothetives, retractive acts, vocatives) and integrating sociopragmatic variables. By analyzing selected examples from Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens, the article demonstrates how speech acts function within literary discourse and reflect broader communicative strategies. The practical relevance of speech act theory is emphasized through its application to both real-world and fictional interactions. Keywords: Speech act, illocution, performativity, pragmatics, taxonomy. Introduction: Speech act theory revolutionized the For instance, in the line “I promise you solemnly,” understanding of language, viewing utterances as answered Rose, the act operates on all three levels: she actions rather than mere statements. Instead of is saying something meaningful (locution), committing treating language solely as a system for describing herself to a promise (illocution), and potentially facts, theorists began to see it as a tool for doing things calming or reassuring the listener (perlocution). — issuing commands, making promises, expressing Later developments in speech act theory, particularly emotions, or altering social reality. This perspective by John Searle, introduced a more refined structure of was most notably developed by J.L. Austin and later utterances by inserting the propositional act between refined by J.R. Searle, whose frameworks established locutionary and illocutionary acts. This addition foundational distinctions in the study of meaning and emphasizes the role of propositional content, referring use, particularly between locutionary, illocutionary, to the actual state of affairs being described, and and perlocutionary acts. involves two key sub-components: reference (the LITERATURE REVIEW identification of entities) and predication (what is asserted about them). J.L. Austin (1962) distinguished three levels in speech acts: J. Searle (1969) formalized the structure of a speech act using the notation F(p), where F denotes the • Locutionary act: the act of saying something illocutionary force (such as a command, question, or with a particular meaning and reference. assertion), and p represents the propositional • Illocutionary act: the conventional force content—the embedded statement or idea. behind an utterance (e.g., warning, promising). Building on J. Austin’s concept of felicity conditions, • Perlocutionary act: the effect or result both philosophers argued that for a speech act to be intended on the listener (e.g., convincing, frightening). successful, certain criteria must be met. These include International Journal Of Literature And Languages 72 https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijll International Journal Of Literature And Languages (ISSN: 2771-2834) the correct and recognized use of a conventional 4. Behabitives – social behavior – apologizing, procedure, the authority and sincerity of the congratulating: I am very sorry if I have disturbed you, participants, and appropriate contextual and sir. intentional alignment. In other words, a performative 5. Expositives – clarifying, explaining: That boy, utterance can fail not only by being factually incorrect, said Mr. Brownlow, may be a thief. But the women’s but also through misused conventions, lack of sincerity, story is so curious, and the boy’s face is so honest... or inappropriate context. METHODS J. Searle (1969) further systematized these This study employs a qualitative analytical method, requirements into four key categories known as drawing on both descriptive and comparative Searle’s rule groups: approaches within the framework of pragmatics. 1. Propositional content rules – the rules restrict Primary theoretical models by J.L. Austin and J.R. Searle the kind of proposition that can occur in a specific are examined through conceptual analysis, while later speech act. For example, a promise must refer to a modifications by linguists such as D. Wunderlich, G. future act by the speaker: If you are not afraid to come Leech, and G.G. Pocheptsov are integrated through with me, say so, my boy; and I shall take you home with literature review and systematization. To illustrate me. (The propositional content here refers to a future theoretical claims in practice, selected utt