Talk:Speech act

message: I quoted this on the Finnish version, but thought to bring it up here as well as seemingly this is the source for the Finnish version when it comes to the history of speech acts -segment. Karl Bühler indeed does use terms Sprechhandlung and Sprechakt but atleast on his Axiomatik... he does suggest former solely as a translation for the dichotomy made by de Saussure and von Humboldt earlier on, namely that of parole/langue and energeia/ergon respectively. Hence, attributing him as an innovator for a given expression seems a far fetch. Also, Bühler cites on his own essay an article wrote a year earlier by some A. A. Grünbaum titled Sprache als Handlung which would suggest that it would be this Grünbaum person who ought to get the merit. For Sprechakte Bühler refers to a single instance of an utterance, not to a speech act by any means. All in all, I doubt you can ever find the "true" source of such a term as it is non-technical by all means. --78.27.78.126 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bühler? 

message: The "first man on the moon" claim went into the Nederlands version. I made a minimal change (from "the first" to "a"). Cat, please check the grammar of that change. Louie 17:01, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion propagation 

message: I've been following this discussion. Congratulations to you all for the way you have dealt with this problem. Banno 20:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: I've read this article with great interest as something new to me. Unfortunately I've noticed a several drawbacks in the structure of the article. I started making some cosmetic changes, but soon noticed that the problems go beyond my ignorant efforts. So I am asking you to fix it.
#The article starts with the phrase There are several different conceptions of what exactly "speech acts" are. and then dives headlong into "illocutionary act". After a brief digresion into "History" section, it goes into "Indirect speech acts" which has a subsection of these "interlocacts" (suggesting that they are a subclass of indirect acts, correct?).
##Question #1: where are the aforeannounced "several different conceptions"?
##Question #2: There already is the illocutionary act article. Why so much discussion of it here? Either it is an unnecessary repetition or much of the text must be moved from here to there, according to Wikipedia:Summary style.
##By scrolling up and down I finally spotted 
###the mention of locutionary act, which was given only a cursory treatment, 
###and then a saw a "perlocutionary act"
#:Finally I noticed that the three of them are mentioned earlier, unwikilinked.
#:IMO all of them must be listed first thing at the very top of the article in the summary. BTW, are there any other types of speech acts? 
#Are there other linguistic schools that adhere to different terminology?  
#I spotted the article "Performative utterance", also referenced with J.L. Austin. What is the difference between the terms "Speech act" and utterance?  This article further says (Austin later deals with them under the name illocutionary acts). What does this mean? Does this mean that  "Performative utterance" and  illocutionary act are the same? If yes, then why two articles? If not, where is the difference?
::In general an utterance might fail for meaning, in which case it wouldn't count as a speech act.  Austin may also have believed that a successful performative implies an illocutionary act in the same way that a meaningful utterance implies a speech act. MaherCoen (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remarks about the order and structure of the article 

message: I've been reading about J. L. Austin and have finished studying one of his essays in the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. The bio the give on him devotes several paragraphs to a certain debate between Derrida and Searle. According to the anthology, the debate was heated enough to polarize Anglo-American philosophers from "French theory." I would certainly be interested in hearing more about this, and if I learn enough to contribute, I may, but it could be many months...
JECompton 07:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately that polarization is so complete it seems that even mentioning Derrida is too much ;) --129.11.249.164 (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Derrida/Searle debates? 

message: At the moment, this article repeatedly and wrongly implies or assumes an identity between speech acts and illocutionary acts. According to Austin's HTDTWW, a speech act is to be analysed as a locutionary act (ie the actual utterance), an illocutionary act (which rather seems to be the sole subject of this article), and in certain cases a perlocutionary act as well. Locutionary acts are in turn analysed as comprising phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts, corresponding to the verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of every meaningful utterance.
Just to make the point clear: My saying to you "Don't go into the water" (a locutionary act with distinct phonetic, syntactic and semantic features) counts as warning you not to go into the water (an illocutionary act), and if you heed my warning I have thereby succeeded in persuading you not to go into the water (a perlocutionary act). This taxonomy is inherited and retained by Searle. For example, "Speech Acts: Illocutionary Acts and Perlocutionary Acts" is the first subheading in the last chapter of his "Mind, Language and Society" (1999).
I have not attempted to make the necessary corrections, partly because I have not myself contributed to the article, but also because it's not obvious whether to fix it, or just rename it and start a new one about Speech Acts generally rather than Illocutionary acts specifically. MaherCoen (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speech acts are NOT identical to illocutionary acts (in Austin and Searle) 

message: I find it surprising that there is no reference to Grice's conversational maxims in the section on Searle's "indirect speech acts". While Searle does not cite Grice as far as I can see in his 1975 article on the subject, it seems impossible to correctly understand "It's raining" as a response to "Would you like to play tennis?" without the maxim of relevance - to cite one example. 
Being new to this forum (Wikipedia generally), I will refrain from making this edit while I become more comfortable with the ins, outs, and other prepositions involved, but I'm noting it here in case anyone is interested in pursuing the matter. 
--Fader (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grice's Conversational Maxims are required to understand Searle's discussion of indirect speech acts, but not the concept of speech acts in general. MalignantMouse (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grice's Conversational Maxims 

message: I think that this article needs a rewrite. I'm sure an actual linguist could understand it, but as someone without any formal training in language, I have no idea what a speech act is. The intro uses the words locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary without any indication of their definitions, and gives a list of examples which don't seem related (how are promising and congratulating similar?). The first section uses much more linguistic jargon than most articles on language, and although I think I understand what those mean, I could easily be wrong. The rest of the article depends on an understanding an understanding of the words locutionary and illocutionary. I think that somebody knowledgeable about speech acts should rewrite this article in a way that is more clear for a layman.
-24.2.217.188 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely; that's why we have the Template:technical tag. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/51/48/10/PDF/From_speech_acts_theory_to_pragmatics_-_Bologna.pdf
*:Triggered by \bhalshs\.archives-ouvertes\.fr on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: It seems strange that this article does not currently  mention the concept of a misfire, considering how fundamental this was to the development of this topic in How To Do Things With Words. Andrewa (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misfire 

message: As a linguistic undergrad student, even I found this article a bit hard to follow. I think moving the definitions of the three cases of speech acts should be moved to the intro and then each should have it's own paragraph. Also maybe some background information is needed for non-linguistic people. For example, they might not know the word semantics or pragmatics. Overall, the article is really informative but just needs some polishing. Arkoeneke (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding more Info and Rearranging