Cited by 56Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationLinguistics and Language Analysis

Classification of intersubjective illocutionary acts

Stiles, William B.·1981·Language in Society

Abstract

An illocutionary act presupposes not only a speaker, but also an other who is the intended recipient of the utterance's illocutionary force. Thus every illocutionary act has an intersubjective component; it connects two centers of experience in a particular way. This article proposes that the intersubjective illocutionary force of an utterance depends on (1) whether it concerns the speaker's or other's experience, (2) whether it takes the speaker's or other's viewpoint, and (3) whether or not the speaker must presume specific knowledge of the other to make the utterance. These three dichotomous principles of classification are called source of experience, frame of reference, and focus, respectively. The eight possible combinations of “speaker” and “other” values define a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of families of intersubjective illocutionary acts – Disclosure, Advisement, Edification, Confirmation, Question, Interpretation, Acknowledgment, and Reflection – which I have elsewhere called “verbal response modes.” The modes are associated with characteristic grammatical forms, which retain a “formal” portion of their illocutionary force even when used to express a different intent, yielding a taxonomy of 64 distinct form-intent combinations. Differences between this taxonomy and other taxonomies of illocutionary acts are partially traceable to the present system's roots in the study of psychotherapeutic processes and the previous systems' roots in the study of explicit performatives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0047404500008654

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Searle's typology has not gone unchallenged, whether in light of ritual use or for ordinary language expressions.

    “Additionally, Searle ' s typology has not gone unchallenged, whether in light of ritual use or for ordinary language expressions”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stiles, W. B.
Affiliations
Miami University (US)
Corresponding author
Stiles, William B.
Venue
Language in Society
Published
1981-08
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
227-249
ISSN
  • 0047-4045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8013
OpenAlex
W2102312056
Cited by
56
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
46.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language in Society (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
illocutionary force, intersubjectivity, verbal response modes, reference frames, focus, disclosure, edification, confirmation, questions, interpretation, acknowledgment, reflection, therapeutic process, performatives

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