Classification of intersubjective illocutionary acts
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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”
From Studies in<i>dhāraṇī</i>literature II: Pragmatics of<i>dhāraṇī</i>s (2014) · cites this paper as Stiles 1981
Cites
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496 · see citing works
Searle, J. R. (1969) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173438 · Cited by 11,718 · see citing works
(1979) · Expression and Meaning · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609213.004 · Cited by 1,393 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Studies in<i>dhāraṇī</i>literature II: Pragmatics of<i>dhāraṇī</i>s
Davidson, R. M. (2014) · Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies · doi:10.1017/s0041977x13000943 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stiles, W. B.
- Affiliations
- Miami University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Stiles, William B.
- ORCID
- Stiles, William B.
- Venue
- Language in Society
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- 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