Department of English

(1
Class:
BS-ENG-VII

Subject:
Discourse Analysis
Topic:
“Speech Act Theory”
Grice's Cooperative Principle
Politeness Theory

Submitted to:
“Madam Shazia Nasreen”

Submitted by:
ZOYA TARIQ
Roll No. 40
1.Speech Act Theory

INTRODUCTION

1
 The speech act theory considers language as a sort of action rather than a
medium to convey and express. The contemporary Speech act theory developed by J.
L. Austin a British philosopher of languages, he introduced this theory in 1975 in his
well-known book of ‘How do things with words’.  Later John Searle brought the
aspects of theory into much higher dimensions. This theory is often used in the field
of philosophy of languages. Austin is the one who came up with the findings that
people not only uses that language to assert things but also to do things. And people
who followed him went to greater depths based on this point.
THEORY
All sort of linguist communication are comprised of linguistic actions.
Previously it was conceived that the very basic unit of communication is words,
Symbols, sentences or some kind of token of all of these, but it was speech act theory
which suggested that production or issuances if words, symbols are the basic units of
communication. This issuance happens during the process of performance of speech
act. The meaning of these basic units was considered as the building blocks of mutual
understanding between the people intend to communicate.

“ A theory of language is a theory of action”

Greig E. Henderson and Christopher Brown.

The theory emphasis that the utterances have a different or specific meaning
to its user and listener other than its meaning according to the language. The theory
further identify that there are two kinds of utterances, they are called constative and
performative utterances.  In his book of ‘How do things with words’ Austin clearly
talks about the disparities between the constative and performative utterances.
A constative utterances is something which describes or denotes the situation,
in relation with the fact of true or false.
Example: The teacher asked Olivia whether she had stolen the candy. Olivia replies
“mmmmmm”. Here the utterances of Olivia describes the event in pact of answering
her teacher whether the situation was true or false.
The performative utterances is something which do not describes anything at
all. The utterances in the sentences or in the part of sentences are normally
considered as having a meaning of its own. The feelings, attitudes, emotions and
thoughts of the person performing linguistic act are much of a principal unit here.
Example: Bane and Sarah have been dating for the past four years. One fine
evening Bane took Sarah to the most expensive restaurant in town. And he ordered
the most expensive wine available in the restaurant. Then he moved closer to her and
asked her that “ will you marry me?”. Sarah burst with contentment and replied “I
will”. Here the “I will” of Sarah express her feelings, attitudes and emotional towards
the context. This utterances have its specific meaning only in relation to it specific
context.

Further Austin divides his linguistic act into three different

categories. They are,
1. Locutionary act – This is the act of saying something. It has a meaning and
it creates an understandable utterly to convey or express

2
2. Illocutionary act –  It is performed as an act of saying something or as an
act of opposed to saying something. The illocutionary utterance has a certain
force of it. It well well-versed with certain tones, attitudes, feelings, or emotions.
There will be an intention of the speaker or others in illocutionary utterance. It is
often used as a tone of warning in day today life
3. Perlocutionary act – It normally creates a sense of consequential effects on
the audiences. The effects may be in the form of thoughts, imaginations, feelings
or emotions. The effect upon the addressee is the main charactership of
perlocutionary utterances

For example
The locutionary act describes a dangerous situation, the illocutionary act acts as a
force of the warning and perlocutionary acts frighten the addressee.
Austin himself admits that these three components of utterances are not altogether
separable.“We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued- the
total speech act – if we are to see the parallel between statements and performative
utterance, and how each can go wrong. Perhaps indeed there is no great distinction
between statements and performative utterances.” Austin.
Searle suggested that the basic unit of linguistic communication is speech act. It can
be a word, a phrase, a sentence or a sound, it should fulfil the task of expressing the
intention of the user.  Understanding the user’s intention can lead to complete
understanding of the speech act.

2.Grice's Cooperative Principle

We will use Paul Grice's (1975) influential 'Cooperative Principle' approach to
describe how we infer unstated meanings in ordinary conversations and apply this to dramatic
conversations.
Your role in this task is to read and understand. Then, in subsequent tasks we will apply
Grecian analysis to a series of brief examples to help you understand how to apply Grecian
analysis.

Conversational cooperation
Grice says that when we communicate we assume, without realising it, that we, and
the people we are talking to, will be conversationally cooperative - we will cooperate to
achieve mutual conversational ends. This conversational cooperation even works when we
are not being cooperative socially. So, for example, we can be arguing with one another
angrily and yet we will still cooperate quite a lot conversationally to achieve the argument.
This conversational cooperation manifests itself, according to Grice, in a number of
conversational MAXIMS, as he calls them, which we feel the need to abide by. These
maxims look at first sight like rules, but they appear to be broken more often than
grammatical or phonological rules are, for example, as we will see later, and this is why
Grice uses the term 'maxim' rather than 'rule'. Here are the four maxims (there may well be
more) which Grice says we all try to adhere to in conversation. You can click on each one
and get an explanatory comment:

3
 The conversational maxims
Maxim of quantity (quantity of information)
  Give the most helpful amount of information.
This maxim is a bit like the temperature of baby bear's porridge in Goldilocks and
the Three Bears - not too much, not too little, but just right! You may often feel that
we are guilty of giving you too much information on this website. But we are trying
to be helpful, honest!
Maxim of quality (quality of information)
  Do not say what you believe to be false.
It may seem at first sight that it would be simpler for this maxim to be 'Tell the
truth'. But it is often difficult to be sure about what is true, and so Grice formulates
this maxim in a way that, although it looks more complicated, is actually easier to
follow. Evidence of the strength of this maxim is that most people find it difficult to
lie when asked a direct question, and we tend to believe what people tell us without
thinking, especially if it is written down (presumably because writers normally have
more time than speakers to consider carefully what they say).
Maxim of relation
  Be relevant.
Note that if you join a conversation you can't just begin to talk about whatever you
like. You have to connect what you want to say (make it relevant) to what is already
being talked about. For example if everyone else is talking about their holidays and
you want to talk about Spain, you'll need to connect the two topics together with a
remark like 'I went on holiday to Spain last year . . .' Similarly, if, in an exam, you
write an essay on a topic slightly different from the question asked you are likely to
lose marks.
Maxim of manner
  Put what you say in the clearest, briefest, and most orderly manner.
Good evidence for this maxim is what you get penalized for when you write essays.
If you are vague or ambiguous (i.e. not clear) you can lose marks; if you are over-
wordy you can lose marks (readers don't like having to read extra words when they
don't have to); if you do not present what you say in the most sensible order for your
argument you can lose marks. And although you don't lose marks in conversation,
you can lose friends if you do not abide by these maxims.  

3.Politeness Theory
Politeness theory explains how and why we protect, promote, and save face
particularly in embarrassing situations. Politeness Theory also suggests that all individuals
are concerned with maintaining a good face. There are two dimensions of face, negative and

4
positive face. This theory covers five strategies of how people go about communicating and
three things that consider how we treat people differently.
Positive face consists of a person’s need to be accepted and liked. To be viewed by
others in a good way requires certain behaviors. Negative face consists of not feeling a need
to be admired or liked between the people they are conversing with. Also it is to have others
respect them and think of them as competent and independent.
At some point everyone will feel threatened and will threaten someone else’s face.
Some face-threatening acts include compliments, criticisms, requests, apologies, and threats.
The strategies that help keep and reclaim face are, corrective face work, avoidance,
going off record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and bald on record. Corrective
facework is when you try to correct by apologies, explanations, avoidance, humor, or repair if
something was physically damaged. This has happened with my Father and brother. My
brother was using my Fathers truck for a week and a part broke on it. My brother followed
the corrective facework strategy by fixing and paying the money himself for the truck so he
could return it the way it was when he first borrowed it.
Avoidance deals with avoiding certain topics, pretending not to notice something, or
changing subjects. Going off record is usually a hint. For example when my wife says
“Tamara’s hungry” she is not telling me so I know that she is hungry, she is telling me to help
my little girl get some food. Negative politeness, is when someone asks for help but is
embarrassed to do. “I know this is really inconvenient, but could you….” Positive Politeness
consists of brown nosing the person then asking for something. For example when I was little
and I really wanted that yummy cookie from grandma, I would let her know that she made
the best cookies and that she was the best grandma in the world. I always got the cookie. Bald
on record is using straight forward boldness. “Grandma get me that cookie!”
The way we use the different strategies depends upon three things, Social distance,
Power, and Risk. Social distance is when you are polite because someone has more fame than
you. Power consists of people that oversee you. Such as, a student professor relationship.
When I go talk to a professor in an office I talk to him different then I would my younger
brother. My tone of voice, body language, and words would all be different. Risk, is about the
perceived threat a certain act has in a culture. So generally an insult is seen to have more of a
risk in our culture than a complement, though both have an element of possible threat. It also
suggests that if you know something will hurt another person you probably won’t say it. Last
week in a super market I saw a friend that is from a different culture that I haven’t seen in 8
years. I approached him and said “It’s so good to see you” his reply was “You’ve gotten fat.”
In his culture that wouldn’t have been a threat, but in ours it is. I felt like I lost face.