The meaning of an utterance is thus defined more by convention than the initiative of the reader. When we speak, we are following learned rules.

Performativity occurs where the utterance of a word also enacts it ('I name this ship...'). It is a form of illocutionary act. This has been taken up by such as Judith Butler in feminism and has been used to indicate how pornography is less a form of speech as a performative act of sexual degradation. It is related to suture and interpellation in the way it forces a situation.

Research

Ludwig Wittgenstein called ‘ordinary language philosophy’ the idea that the meaning of language depends on its actual use, rather than having an inherent meaning.

Speech-act theory was originated by Austin (1962) and developed further by Searle (1969).

Example

Oh! - is an utterance (note that communication is not intended - it is just a sound caused by surprise).

The black cat - is a propositional act (something is referenced, but no communication may be intended)

The black cat is stupid - is an assertive illocutionary act (it intends to communicate).

Please find the black cat - is a directive perlocutionary act (it seeks to change behaviour).

So what?

By understanding the detail of what is being said, you can hence understand and communicate better with others.

History and Orientation.

Speech act theory is built on the foundation of laid by L.Wittgenstein and

Cognitive Linguistics and Communication.

In linguistics, cognitive linguistics (CL) refers to the branch of linguistics that interprets language in terms of the concepts, sometimes universal, sometimes specific to a particular tongue, which underlie its forms. It is thus closely associated with semantics but is distinct from psycholinguistics, which draws upon empirical findings from cognitive psychology in order to explain the mental processes that underlie the acquisition, storage, production and understanding of speech and writing.

Cognitive linguistics is characterized by adherence to three central positions. First, it denies that there is an autonomous linguistic faculty in the mind; second, it understands grammar in terms of conceptualization; and third, it claims that knowledge of language arises out of language use.[1]

Cognitive linguists deny that the mind has any module for language-acquisition that is unique and autonomous. This stands in contrast to the stance adopted in the field of generative grammar. Although cognitive linguists do not necessarily deny that part of the human linguistic ability is innate, they deny that it is separate from the rest of cognition. They thus reject a body of opinion in cognitive science which suggests that there is evidence for the modularity of language. They argue that knowledge of linguistic phenomena — i.e., phonemes, morphemes, and syntax — is essentially conceptual in nature. However, they assert that the storage and retrieval of linguistic data is not significantly different from the storage and retrieval of other knowledge, and that use of language in understanding employs similar cognitive abilities to those used in other non-linguistic tasks.

Departing from the tradition of truth-conditional semantics, cognitive linguists view meaning in terms of conceptualization. Instead of viewing meaning in terms of models of the world, they view it in terms of mental spaces.

Finally, cognitive linguistics argues that language is both embodied and situated in a specific environment. This can be considered a moderate offshoot of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, in that language and cognition mutually influence one another, and are both embedded in the experiences and environments of its users.