Questions: Speech Act Theory

Question 1

A judge says 'I hereby sentence you to five years in prison.' Which of Searle's five illocutionary categories does this utterance belong to?

• A. Assertive
• B. Commissive
• C. Directive
• D. Declaration

Answer: (D)

Declarations are illocutionary acts that bring about the state of affairs they name — the sentencing is accomplished by the utterance itself, provided the judge has the institutional authority to perform it. Assertives describe an existing state; commissives commit the speaker to a future action; directives attempt to get the hearer to act.

Question 2

When someone says 'Can you pass the salt?', the illocutionary force is a question about the hearer's physical ability to reach the salt.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

This is an indirect speech act: the literal locutionary content is an interrogative about ability, but the illocutionary force — what is actually done in saying it — is a directive, specifically a polite request. Speakers and hearers use contextual reasoning (Gricean principles, situational knowledge) to recover the intended illocutionary force from the literal form.

Question 3

What is the difference between an illocutionary act and a perlocutionary act? Give an example that illustrates the distinction.

Model answer: An illocutionary act is what the speaker does in uttering words — the intended social action (warning, promising, asserting). A perlocutionary act is the effect produced in the hearer as a result. For example, saying 'The bridge is out' is an illocutionary act of warning; the hearer turning back is the perlocutionary effect. The illocutionary act is defined by the speaker's intention and felicity conditions; the perlocutionary effect depends on the hearer's response and may not occur.

Austin's three-way distinction matters because illocutionary acts are conventionally regulated (a promise counts as a promise if felicity conditions are met regardless of whether it changes behavior), whereas perlocutionary effects are contingent on the hearer's psychology and circumstances. Conflating them leads to confusing whether a communicative act succeeded with whether it had its intended impact.