THE EVOLUTION OF SPEECH ACT THEORY: FROM AUSTIN TO CONTEMPORARY SEMANTIC APPLICATIONS
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This comprehensive study examines the theoretical evolution and contemporary applications of Speech Act Theory (SAT) from its philosophical foundations in J.L. Austin's pioneering work to its current interdisciplinary implementations across digital, cross-cultural, and computational contexts. Through qualitative descriptive-analytical methodology, this research traces four distinct paradigmatic shifts in SAT development: Austin's performative revolution (1955-1962), Searle's systematic taxonomic framework (1969-1995), Gricean pragmatic integration (1975-1989), and contemporary semantic adaptations. The study reveals SAT's remarkable theoretical adaptability while maintaining its core principle that language functions as social action rather than mere representation. Analysis of primary and secondary literature demonstrates how SAT has successfully addressed modern communicative challenges including emoji pragmatics, platform-specific digital conventions, cross-cultural directness variations, and artificial intelligence applications in dialogue act tagging and machine translation. Key findings indicate that while contemporary challenges such as multimodal integration, temporal displacement in digital communication, and algorithmic mediation require ongoing theoretical refinement, these developments validate rather than undermine SAT's foundational insights. The research confirms SAT's continued relevance for understanding human communication complexity, with particular significance for computational linguistics applications achieving 70-85% accuracy in speech act classification and cross-cultural communication studies revealing systematic variations in directness parameters across high-context and low-context cultures. This evolution from philosophical speculation to empirical application establishes SAT as an essential framework for analyzing how humans construct social reality and achieve communicative goals across diverse technological and cultural contexts.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J.R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-23.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herring, S.C. (2010). Computer-mediated conversation: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet, 7(1), 1-13.
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J.H. (2023). Speech and Language Processing (3rd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Stolcke, A., Ries, K., Coccaro, N., Shriberg, E., Bates, R., Jurafsky, D., Taylor, P., Martin, R., Van Ess-Dykema, C., & Meteer, M. (2000). Dialogue act modeling for automatic tagging and recognition of conversational speech. Computational Linguistics, 26(3), 339-373.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sbisà, M. (2002). Speech acts in context. Language & Communication, 22(4), 421-436.
Huang, Y. (2007). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.