Abstract
In this chapter, we shall consider, systematically, the types of speech act that are likely to arise in instructional or procedural texts and the forms they take. This will be preceded by a general presentation of Speech Act Theory. Thus, the chapter can be read autonomously and may possibly allow new applications to be formulated.
The author is grateful to Karine Chemla, Hélène Eyrolle, Julie Lemarié, Mustapha Mojahid, Colette Ravinet and Jean-Luc Soubie who have given many perceptive comments and much helpful advice on the writing of this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
List of symbols used: SAT = Speech Act Theory: S = speaker, author; H = hearer, reader; u = utterance, text; A = action named or described in utterance u; p = proposition; T: sentence uttered; ifid = illocutionary force indicating device; bIF = basic illocutionary force; CS = conditions of success.
In the case of procedural texts: H = consignee; A(s) = action A is done by S; A(h) = action A is done by H; CS + = added conditions of success.
We extend our thanks to Pierre Chaigneau and Richard Kennedy who have provided insightful remarks on the English version of this text.
- 2.
This led Searle to reconsider the notion of effect in Grice’s conception of meaning, where the two kinds of act are combined, and to identify a truly illocutionary effect separate from the perlocutionary effect.
- 3.
In Artificial Intelligence and cognitive psychology, a script (or frame) is a conceptual representation of procedural knowledge on physical or mental stereotyped actions.
- 4.
The concepts of “dense” and “articulated” refer to a property of differences in structure among units as they are continuous (in the passage from one unit to another, there may be a third) or discrete (between two structurally contiguous units, there can be no a third intermediate unit).
- 5.
The same diversity can be observed for direct illocutionary acts :imperative : Cite as follows … Type captions on a separate sheet Please mark clearly …directive : Permission to reproduce material is entirely the author’s responsibility Authors are permitted to …Contributors are advised to …UCP accepts electronic files …
- 6.
This situation is well known for reference in relation to Grice’s maxims: if I’m living in a tiny village near Toulouse and a foreign colleague asks me where I live, the most cooperative answer would be ‘in Toulouse,’ which is, strictly speaking, wrong, or ‘near Toulouse,’ which is imprecise.
- 7.
Another criterion, not pertinent for us here, shows that assertive acts can also be distinguished between those which do not necessarily involve dialogue (to affirm, to declare,…) and those which are normally only used in the case of a dialogue (to object, to contradict,…)
- 8.
Furthermore, a diagnosis is also related to a ‘prescription’ type act; that is of the directive type (Sect. 2.3.2.2)
- 9.
In Frege’s terms, it can be said that the two sentences have the same referent but not the same meaning.
References
Anscombe, Gertrude E. M. 1957. Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.
Austin, John L. 1961. Philosophical papers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. The William James lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Oxford: Oxford University Press (second edition, 1976).
Bach, Kent. 1994. Semantic slack: What is said, and more?. In Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, ed. L. Tsohatzidis, 267–291. London: Routledge.
Bach, Kent, and Robert Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bertolet, R. 1994. Are there indirect speech acts?. In Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, ed. L. Tsohatzidis, 335–349. London: Routledge.
Bratman, M. E. 1987. Intention, plans and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Camilleri, G. 2002. Dialogue systems and planning. In Text Speech and Dialogue, 5th International Conference TSD 2002, Brno, Czech Republic, Book Part III: 429–436.
Champagne, M., J. Virbel, and J.-L. Nespoulous. 1999. Comprehension of nonliteral speech acts: Is there a need to active literal meaning first? In European Conference on Cognitive Science Siena Conference Proceedings, ed S. Bagnara, 349–352.
Champagne, M., A. Herzig, D. Longin, J.-L. Nespoulous, and J. Virbel. 2002. Formalisation pluridisciplinaire de l’inférence de certains types d’actes de langage non littéraux. Information—Interaction—Intelligence. Numero Spécial Modèles Formels de l’Interaction (Hors série): 197–225.
Champagne, M., J. Virbel, J.-L. Nespoulous, and Y. Joanette. 2003. Impact of right hemispheric damage on a hierarchy of complexity evidenced in young normal subjects. Brain and Cognition 53: 152–157.
Cohen, Ph., J. Morgan, and M. Pollack, (eds.) 1990. Intentions in communication. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Davidson, D. 1980. Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Genette, G. 1997. The work of art: Immanence and transcendence. Trans. G. M. Goshgarian. Ithaca: Cornell University Press
Goodman, N. 1968. (Rev. ed. 1976). Languages of art. An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: The Bobbs Merrill Company. Revised edition: Hackett Publishing Company.
Grice, P. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66:377–88. Reprinted in (Grice 1989).
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Harris, R. 2000. Rethinking writing. London: The Athlone Press.
Heurley, L. 1994. Traitement de textes procéduraux. Etude de psycholinguistique cognitive des processus de production et de compréhension chez des adultes non experts. Ph. D. Thesis, Université de Bourgogne.
Holdcroft, D. 1994. Indirect speech acts and propositional content. In Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives, ed L. Tsohatzidis, 350–364. London: Routledge.
Hornsby, J. 2008. Speech acts and performatives. In The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language, ed. E. Lepore and B. C. Smith, 893–912. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jakobson, R. 1960. Linguistics and poetics. In Style in Language, ed. T. Sebeok, 350–377. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kautz, H. 1990. A circumscription theory of plans recognition. In Intentions in communication, eds. Ph. Cohen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack, 105–133. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kosseim, L., and G. Lapalme. 2000. Choosing rhetorical structures to plan instructional texts. Computational Intelligence 16 (3): 408–445.
Lemarié, J., R. F. Lorch, H. Eyrolle, and J. Virbel. 2008. SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist 43 (1): 27–48.
Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norman, D. 1981. Categorization of actions slips. Psychological Review 88 (1): 1–15.
Petrucci, A. 1986. La scrittura. Ideologia e rappresentazione. Torino: Einaudi.
Reason, J. 1990. Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schaeffer, J-M. 1989. Qu’est-ce qu’un genre littéraire? . Paris: Editions du Seuil.
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. 1971. What is a speech act?. In The philosophy of language, ed. J. R. Searle, 39–53. London: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R., and D. Vanderveken 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tonfoni, G. 1996. Communication patterns and textual forms. Bristol: Intellect.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.) 1994. Foundations of speech act theory. Philosophical and linguistic perspectives. London: Routledge.
Vanderveken, D. 1990. Meaning and speech acts. Volume I: Principles of language use; Volume II: Formal semantics of success and satisfaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanderveken, D. 2001. Illocutionary logic and discourse typology. Special issue “Searle with his replies”. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 216 (2): 243–255.
Vanderveken, D., and S. Kubo. 2002. Essays in Speech act Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Virbel, J., and J.-L. Nespoulous. 2006. Des raisons de (ne pas) faire l’action. Approches logico-pragmatiques et perspectives (neuro)psycholinguistiques. Psychologie de l’Interaction 21–22: 211–236.
Vuillemin, J. 1984. Les formes fondamentales de la prédication: un essai de classification. Langage et philososophie des sciences 4: 9–30.
Zaraté, P., M. Munoz, J.-L. Soubie, and R. Houé. 2005. Knowledge management systems: A process oriented view. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 41 (2): 274–277.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Virbel, J. (2015). Speech Act Theory and Instructional Texts. In: Chemla, K., Virbel, J. (eds) Texts, Textual Acts and the History of Science. Archimedes, vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16444-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16444-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16443-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16444-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)