Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 29:1 (2019) ► pp.33–56

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Rejecting and challenging illocutionary acts

 | South-West University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 7 March 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17041.cha
Abstract
This paper examines aspects of strategic interaction and the construction of the social actor in a neo-Austinian framework of illocutionary acts. The basic premise of the neo-Austinian framework is conventionality, according to which illocutionary acts depend on social agreement. An important part of the framework is the felicity condition of entitlement, directly related to the hearer’s understanding of the conventions that should hold for an act performance. Two strategies of challenging and/or rejecting illocutionary acts are then identified tentatively dubbed looping and backfiring, related to the hearer’s perception of when the entitlement felicity condition is flouted. Both strategies can be overtly or covertly confrontational and demonstrate that in their social quality illocutionary acts serve to construct the social actor and build up interpersonal relations.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The neo-Austinian framework for illocutionary acts
    • 2.1Illocutionary acts
    • 2.2Challenging and rejecting illocutionary acts
    • 2.3The entitlement felicity condition
    • 2.4Constructing the social actor
  • 3.Rejecting and challenging illocutionary acts in strategic interaction – some illustrations
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (28)
References
Akinnaso, Niyi F. 1985. “On the Similarities between Spoken and Written Language.” Language and Speech 28(4): 323–359. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, and Harnish, Robert M. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 1999. “On Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 311: 881–909. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Camerer, Colin. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Carlson, Thomas B. 1982. “Hearers and Speech Acts.” Language 58(2): 332–373. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dörge, Friedrich C. 2004. Illocutionary Acts: Austin’s Account and What Searle Made of It. PhD dissertation, Tübingen, URL [URL] (Retrieved 01.06.2009).
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1957. “Meaning.” Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jurgen. 2000. On the Pragmatics of Communication. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansson, Sten. 2015. “Calculated Overcommunication: Strategic Uses of Prolixity, Irrelevance, and Repetition in Administrative Language.” Journal of Pragmatics 841: 172–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet. 1984. “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 8(3): 345–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, James. 1991. “Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action.” Political Theory 19(2): 181–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 1984. “On Illocutionary Types.” Journal of Pragmatics 81: 93–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. “Speech Acts, Effects and Responses.” In (On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 101–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. “Illocutionary Force and Degree of Strength in Language Use.” Journal of Pragmatics 33(12): 1791–1814. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Speech Acts in Contexts.” Language and Communication 221: 421–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “How to Read Austin.” Pragmatics 17(3): 461–473. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(1): 33–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sbisa, Marina. 2018. “Varieties of Speech Act Norms”. In Normativity and Variety of Speech Actions, ed. by Maciej Witek and Iwona Witczak-Pliciecka. Special issue of Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities.
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1979. Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1992. “Conversation”. In (On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 7–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen. 1992. “The dispreferred other.” In (On) Searle on Conversation, ed. by Herman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 129–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wee, Lionel. 2004. “‘Extreme Communicative Acts’ and the Boosting Of Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics 36(12): 2161–2178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Witek, Maciej. 2015a. “Mechanisms of Illocutionary Games.” Language and Communication 421: 11–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015b. “An Interactional Account Of Illocutionary Practice.” Language Sciences 471: 43–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Wang, Bin
2024. Sisterhood construction through commenting by Chinese women. Pragmatics & Cognition 31:2 ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue