Cited by 1,075Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Language Analysis

A taxonomy of illocutionary acts

Open access
John Rogers Searle·1979·Expression and Meaning

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The primary purpose of this paper is to develop a reasoned classification of illocutionary acts into certain basic categories or types. It is to answer the question: How many kinds of illocutionary acts are there? Since any such attempt to develop a taxonomy must take into account Austin's classification of illocutionary acts into his five basic categories of verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behabitive, and commissive, a second purpose of this paper is to assess Austin's classification to show in what respects it is adequate and in what respects inadequate. Furthermore, since basic semantic differences are likely to have syntactical consequences, a third purpose of this paper is to show how these different basic illocutionary types are realized in the syntax of a natural language such as English. In what follows, I shall presuppose a familiarity with the general pattern of analysis of illocutionary acts offered in such works as How to Do Things with Words (Austin, 1962), Speech Acts (Searle, 1969), and ‘Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts’ (Searle, 1968). In particular, I shall presuppose a distinction between the illocutionary force of an utterance and its propositional content as symbolized F(p) The aim of this paper then is to classify the different types of F. DIFFERENT TYPES OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS Any taxonomical effort of this sort presupposes criteria for distinguishing one (kind of) illocutionary act from another.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9780511609213.003

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Searle, J. R.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
John Rogers Searle
Venue
Expression and Meaning
Published
1979-10-31
Pages
1-29
OpenAlex
W1578573104
Cited by
1,075
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 65 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 33
FWCI
101.93
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
  • University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
illocutionary acts, J. L. Austin, speech act theory, commissive speech acts, illocutionary force, propositional content, English syntax, How to Do Things with Words

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review