Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory

Austin: How to Do Things with Words

John Austin ("How to Do Things with Words", 1962) posed the question: what happens when we speak? Traditional semantics: a sentence describes a fact (true or false). But many sentences do not describe—they act.

"I promise to come"—this is not a description of a promise, it is the promise itself. "I pronounce you husband and wife"—this is not a description of a marriage, it is the act of marrying. Austin called such utterances "performatives": they perform an action in the very act of utterance.

Three dimensions of a speech act. Locutionary act: the utterance of words with their literal meaning. Illocutionary act: the speaker's intention (to order, to request, to promise, to warn). Perlocutionary act: the effect on the listener (he did what he was asked to do).

Grice: The Maxims of Cooperative Communication

Paul Grice formulated the "cooperative principle": the speaker makes his contribution as required at the moment for the purpose of the conversation. This is not a description of what happens—it is a norm upon which we interpret utterances.

Four maxims: quantity (do not say more or less than is needed), quality (do not say what you do not believe), relation (be relevant), manner (be clear). Breaking a maxim creates an "implicature"—an indirect meaning.

"Can I pass you the salt?"—literally a question about ability, not a request. But we understand it as a request—because we interpret it through the cooperative principle: why else ask about one's ability? This is a "conversational implicature".

Knowledge of pragmatics is critically important in negotiations, diplomacy, legal contracts: words do things, and subtle differences in wording create different obligations.

Question for reflection: Recall your last negotiation or important conversation. What "performative" utterances (promises, agreements, refusals) were made? Were they understood unambiguously?