Pragmatik pp 214-225 | Cite as

Informatives and / or Directives?

A New Start in Speech Act Classification
  • Georg Meggle
  • Maria Ulkan
Part of the Linguistische Berichte book series (LINGB)


In order to avoid being thoroughly ad hoc, any classification has to be principled — which holds with classifying (types of) illocutionary acts in particular. As a theory of illocutionary acts is best seen to be a special branch of action theory in general, it seems to be clear where the relevant classification-principles have to come from. (i) It is a general theory of action, in terms of which (basic) illocutionary acts are to be explicated; and, in order to be reliable, (ii) the needed classification-principles have to be derived from (the logical connections existing between) these action-theoretic explications themselves. Now, although much lip-service has been paid to (i), until quite recently virtually nothing has been done about working it out systematically.1 Consequently, the same holds true with the state of the art of task (ii). Thus, one has to make a new start.2


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alston, W.A. (1964): Philosophy of Language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D.M. (1971): “Meaning and Communication”. The Philosophical Review 80, 427–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, J.L. (1962): How To Do Things With Words. Cambridge, Mass: Havard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish, (1979): Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Ballmer, Th. (1979): “Probleme der Klassifikation von Sprechakten”. In: G. Grewendorf, ed.: Sprechakttheorie und Semantik. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 247–274.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, J. (1976): Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Grice, H.P. (1957): “Meaning”. The Philosophical Review 66, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Meggle, G. (1981; 19972): Grundbegriffe der Kommunikation. Berlin: de Gruyter. (In the paper referred to by GBK)Google Scholar
  9. Meggle, G.: HTS, Handlungstheoretische Semantik. Unpublished - but widely spread in at least five different versions by copies.Google Scholar
  10. Meggle, G. (1993): “Gemeinsamer Glaube und Gemeinsames Wissen”. In: W. Lenzen, ed.: Tractatus physico-philosophici. Osnabrücker Philosophische Schriften, 145–151. Reprinted in: Allgemeine Gesellschaft für Philosophie, ed.: Neue Realitäten–Herausforderung der Philosophie. Berlin, 761–767.Google Scholar
  11. Meggle, G. & M. Ulkan: “Das sprechakttheoretische Unaufrichtigkeits-Argument”. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  12. Meggle, G. (1997a): “Communicative Actions”. In: G. Holmström-Hintikka & R. Tuomela, eds.: Contemporary Action Theory. Vol. II, The Philosophy and Logic of Social Action. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  13. Searle, J.R. (1975): “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts”. In: K. Gunderson, ed.: Language, Mind and Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 344–369.Google Scholar
  14. Schiffer, S. (1972; 19882): Meaning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Meggle
    • 1
  • Maria Ulkan
    • 2
  1. 1.LeipzigDeutschland
  2. 2.MünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations