Element contents
Series: Elements in Pragmatics
Speech Act Theory
Between Narrow and Broad Pragmatics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2025
Summary
Speech act theory has been foundational in establishing pragmatics as an independent field of inquiry; yet, recent pragmatic research appears to have drifted away from the theoretical investigation of speech acts. This Element explores the reasons why this is so, focusing on the difference of perspective that emerges when the scope of the discipline is viewed through a narrow versus a broad lens. Following an overview of the initial exposition of speech act theory by Austin, it tracks its evolution, through subsequent Searlean and Gricean elaborations, to the currently received view. This view is then found to have diverged substantially from Austin's original vision, largely due to its alignment with the narrow conception of pragmatics. Against this backdrop, it is suggested that embracing the broad take on the discipline can allow for a reintegration of Austin's vision into the way we theorise about speech acts.
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Series: Elements in PragmaticsOnline ISBN: 9781009378376Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 05 February 2026
References
Alston, William P. 1994. Illocutionary acts and linguistic meaning. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 29–49.Google Scholar
Altman, Andrew. 1993. Liberalism and campus hate speech: A philosophical examination. Ethics 103(2): 302–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2010. Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2008. Intention, common ground and the availability of semantic content: A relevance-theoretic perspective. In Kecskes, Istvan & Mey, Jacob L. (eds.) Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2017. Relevance. In Barron, Anne, Gu, Yueguo & Steen, Gerard (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Pragmatics. London: Routledge, pp. 310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2020. Incitement to discriminatory hatred, illocution and perlocution. Pragmatics and Society 11(2): 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2021a. Beyond meaningNN and ostension: Pragmatic inference in the wild. In Ifantidou, Elly, de Saussure, Louis & Wharton, Tim (eds.) Beyond Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2021b. Interpretation, relevance and the ideological effects of discursive practice. Pragmatics & Cognition 28(2): 394–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros. 2022. Ostension and the communicative function of natural language. Journal of Pragmatics 191: 46–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1953. How to talk: Some simple ways. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 53(1952–1953): 227–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words (edited by Urmson), James Opie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1975. How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed. (edited by James Opie Urmson and Marina Sbisà). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1999. Grice, H. Paul. In Wilson, Robert A. & Keil, Frank C. (eds.) The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 359–360.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 2012. Context dependence. In García-Carpintero, Manuel & Kölbel, Max (eds.) The Continuum Companion to the Philosophy of Language. London: Continuum, pp. 153–184.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent & Harnish, Robert M.. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1971. Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linguistic Inquiry 2(3): 401–407.Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 1988. The concept of preference in conversation analysis. Language in Society 17(2): 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C.. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfram & Norrick, Neal R.. 2011. Introduction: The burgeoning field of pragmatics. In Bublitz, Wolfram & Neal, R. Norrick (eds.) Foundations of Pragmatics. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton, pp. 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burkhardt, Armin. 1990. Speech act theory – the decline of a paradigm. In Burkhardt, Armin (ed.) Speech Acts, Meaning and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 91–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, Siobhan. 2006. Thinking about Language: Theories of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2021. Sociopragmatics: Roots and definition. In Haugh, Michael, Kádár, Dániel Z. & Terkourafi, Marina (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Haugh, Michael. 2014. Pragmatics and the English Language. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Terkourafi, Marina. 2017. Pragmatic approaches (im)politeness. In Culpeper, Jonathan, Haugh, Michael & Kádár, Dániel (eds.) The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness, 11–39. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Steven. 1991. Introduction. In Davis, Steven (ed.) Pragmatics: A Reader, 11–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Haugh, Michael. 2022. Action ascription in social interaction. In Deppermann, Arnulf & Haugh, Michael (eds.) Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1977. Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Grootendorst, Rob. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elder, Chi-Hé. 2024. Pragmatic Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman & Wodak, Ruth. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In van Dijk, Teun (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 2): Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage, pp. 258–284.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 2015. On the notion of pre-request. Discourse Studies 17(1): 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar & Sifianou, Maria. 2019. (Im)politeness and discursive pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar. 2024. Pragmatics, (Im)Politeness, and Intergroup Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Mitchell S. 2021. Speech acts. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/speech-acts/.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter & Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 22–40.Google Scholar
Paul, Grice H.. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388. Reprinted in Grice, 1989, pp. 213–23.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1986. Reply to Richards. In Grandy, Richard E. & Warner, Richard (eds.) Philosophical Grounds of Rationality. Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 45–106.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haaparanta, Leila. 2013. Philosophy and its recent history: Remarks on What is Analytic Philosophy? by Hans-Johann Glock. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 2(2): 2–5.Google Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut & Mey, Jacob L.. 1977. Editorial: Linguistics and pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 1(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut & Mey, Jacob L.. 2002. Linguistics and pragmatics, 25 years after. Journal of Pragmatics 34(12): 1671–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Daniel W. Fogal, Daniel & Moss, Matt. 2018. Speech acts: The contemporary theoretical landscape. In Fogal, Daniel, Harris, Daniel W. & Moss, Matt (eds.) New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael. 2008. Intention in pragmatics. Intercultural Pragmatics 5(2): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2004. Implicature. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Juliane, House & Kádár, Dániel Z. 2021. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Yan. 2010. Anglo-American and European Continental traditions. In Cummings, Louise (ed.) The Pragmatics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge, pp. 13–15.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas. 2024. Speech Acts: Discursive, Multimodal, Diachronic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. 1977. Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force: A Study of the Contribution of Sentence Meaning to Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan. 2010. The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society 1(1): 50–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2011. Misleading appearances: Searle on assertion and meaning. Erkenntnis 74(1): 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, Mikhail. 2012. Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In Allan, Keith & Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (Volume 9, Number 1), pp. 292–305.Google Scholar
Langton, Rae. 1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs 22(4): 293–330.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17(5–6): 365–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. C. 2017. Speech acts. In Huang, Yan (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 199–216.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2021b. Speech act pluralism in argumentative polylogues. Informal Logic 41(3): 421–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 1998. Approaching Dialogue: Talk, Interaction and Contexts in Dialogical Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn. 1976. On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5(3): 315–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. 2016. Pragmatics seen through the prism of society. In Allan, Keith, Capone, Alessandro & Kecskes, Istvan (eds.) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham: Springer, pp. 105–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob L. & Talbot, Mary. 1988. Computation and the soul. Journal of Pragmatics 12(5–6): 743–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 2005. Language: A Biological Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montague, Richard. 1974. Formal Philosophy: Selected Papers of Richard Montague (edited by Thomason), Richmond H.. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1978. Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261–280.Google Scholar
Morris, Charles. 1938. Foundations of the theory of signs. In Neumeth, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf & Morris, Charles (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 77–138.Google Scholar
Oishi, Etsuko. 2016. Austin’s speech acts and Mey’s pragmemes. In Allan, Keith, Capone, Alessandro & Kecskes, Istvan (eds.) Pragmemes and Theories of Language Use. Cham: Springer, pp. 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2004. The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Watanabe, Kazuha & Robert, B. Young (eds.) Proceedings of SALT 14. Ithaca: CLC, pp. 235–252.Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise. 1986. Ideology and speech-act theory. Poetics Today 7(1): 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François. 2004a. Pragmatics and semantics. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 442–462.Google Scholar
van Rees, M. Agnes. 1992. The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining conversational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics 17(1): 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John R. 1970. On declarative sentences. In Jacobs, Roderick A. & Rosenbaum, Peter S. (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham: Ginn, pp. 222–272.Google Scholar
Ruytenbeek, Nicolas, Ostashchenko, Ekaterina & Kissine, Mikhail. 2017. Indirect request processing, sentence types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics 119: 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1974. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 2004. Speech acts. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
Saul, Jennifer. 2018. Dogwhistles, political manipulation, and philosophy of language. In Fogal, Daniel, Harris, Daniel W. & Moss, Matt (eds.) New Work on Speech Acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 360–383.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 1992. Speech acts, effects and responses. In Searle, John R., Parrett, Herman & Verschueren, Jef (eds.) (On) Searle on Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(1): 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2012. Austin on meaning and use. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 8(1): 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2022. Speech act theory. In Verschueren, Jef & Östman, Jan-Ola (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1303–1317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 2024. Austinian Themes: Illocution, Action, Knowledge, Truth, and Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1979. Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Psathas, George (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp. 23–78.Google Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P. & Barron, Anne (eds.). 2008. Variational Pragmatics: A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1968. Austin on locutionary and illocutionary acts. The Philosophical Review 77(4): 405–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975a. A taxonomy of speech acts. In Gunderson, Keith (ed.) Language, Mind, and Knowledge: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 344–369.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975b. Indirect speech acts. In Cole, Peter & Jerry, L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 59–82.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1980. The background of meaning. In Searle, John R., Kiefer, Ferenc & Bierwisch, Manfred (eds.) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. & Vanderveken, Daniel. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Alasdair. 1976. The Sociolinguistic Significance of the Form of Requests in Service Encounters: An Empirical Investigation. Unpublished PhD thesis: University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Wilson, Deirdre. 2015. Beyond speaker’s meaning. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15: 117–149.Google Scholar
Strawson, Peter F. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. The Philosophical Review 73(4): 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. 1944. The semantic conception of truth and the foundations of semantics. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 4(3): 341–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 1987. Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation (IPrA Working Document 1). Antwerp: International Pragmatics AssociationGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2022. The pragmatic perspective. In Verschueren, Jef & Östman, Jan-Ola (eds.) Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual, 2nd ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1996. The state of the art in speech act theory. Pragmatics & Cognition 4(2): 367–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics 9(2–3): 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 1988. Mood and the analysis of non-declarative sentences. In Dancy, Jonathan, Moravcsik, Julius Matthew Emil & Taylor, Christopher Charles Whiston (eds.) Human Agency: Language, Duty and Value. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 77–101.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90(1–2): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance theory. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory (eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 607–632.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2021. The Grammar of Interactional Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witek, Maciej. 2015. An interactional account of illocutionary practice. Language Sciences 47(A): 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
The HTML of this element
complies with version 2.1 of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved
user experiences and achieves the intermediate
(AA)
level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.
Content Navigation
Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Reading Order & Textual Equivalents
Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Visual Accessibility
Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Structural and Technical Features
ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.