On Austin and Searle's theory of speech acts

In human communicative activities, speech act is one of the most common ways of communication, and speech act refers to people's behavior of using language in specific contexts in order to achieve communicative purposes. Here is what I bring about about Austin and Searle's theory of speech act, welcome to read and refer to it!

Austin and Searle's Speech Act Theory 范文 篇1：《试谈奥斯汀与塞尔的言语行为理论》

Malinowski, from the perspective of anthropology, studied the function of language by observing the cultural life and customs of a people, and thought that instead of looking at the language as? signals of thought, it is more important to consider language as a , it is more important to consider it as the rather than as a signal of thought, it is a way of behavior. After the rise of pragmatics, this term was widely used, and speech acts were understood as an activity of human beings to realize their purposes, constituting an integral part of their total activities. People's behavior is always governed by social statutes, and speech acts are seen as a kind of behavior governed by various social statutes. British philosopher Austin (J.L. Aus) in the 1950s put forward? Speech Act Theory? (speechacttheory), after the refinement and development of Searle (J.R. Searle), has become an important research topic in philosophy and linguistics, and one of the core contents of modern pragmatics.

First, Austin's speech act theory

Speech act theory is the British philosopher Austin first put forward. 1957, he went to Harvard University in the United States to give a lecture, to "speech act" as the title of the book published the lecture of the whole content of the discourse, in its exposition, throughout the idea that: people speak not only for the purpose of speaking, when he said a sentence at the same time can implement a behavior. The basic starting point of speech act theory is that the basic unit of human linguistic communication should not be the word, the sentence, or any other linguistic form, but the act that people accomplish with words or sentences. According to Austin, the traditional grammar divides sentences into declarative, interrogative, imperative and other types according to their functions, which is not conducive to people's understanding and use of speech, because the same sentence has different functions in different contexts. He believes that quite a number of discourses not only provide information, but also accomplish or help to accomplish many behaviors. Austin proposed the speech act theory on this basis.

(I) Representational Sentences and Performative Sentences

In Acting with Words, Austin first distinguishes between representational sentences (constative) and performative sentences (performative). For a long time, philosophers have held the assumption that the role of the words of the statement is either to describe the state of things or to state a fact, one of the two must be, and there is no other use, and the description or statement made by the words of the statement can only be true or false. Philosophers have traditionally been concerned only with verifiability, that is, how to verify whether a statement is true or false, and how to stipulate that a true statement must satisfy Ran's conditions of insult. Austin is skeptical of this traditional view in the study of language in philosophy. He argues that ? many statements are nothing but pseudo? (pseudo?state?ment), that much of what people say may appear to be statements, but that they do not aim at all, or only partially, to give a frank account of or convey information about facts. It is sometimes unnecessary and impossible to distinguish between statements of ? true? or? false? because some sentences, when uttered, are acts, and acts are only appropriate or inappropriate, not true or false. Austin argues for a distinction between sentences that are true or false and sentences that are appropriate or inappropriate. Sentences with the distinction between truth and falsehood are expression sentences, whose function is to assert or state facts and describe the state of affairs, report the state of affairs, the content of the expression can be verified, that is, either true or false; there are appropriate and inappropriate sentences for the implementation of the sentence, they do not have the function of reporting, describing and expressing, but has the function of implementing certain behaviors. The words of the sentences are not verifiable; they are not true or fallacious. Austin uses four example sentences to illustrate this type of discourse: 1) Id0 (used in the course of a marriage ceremony); 2) InanlethisshipElizabeth (used in the naming ceremony of a ship); 3) Igiveandbequeathmywatchtomybrohter (used in a will); 4) Ibetyousixpenceitwillraintomorrow(used in betting). The saying of these words by a particular person in a particular situation actually constitutes the commission of certain acts. In other words, the speaker is not making a statement or description but is accomplishing a certain action, such as marriage, naming, bequest, or betting, when he or she says these words.

(ii) Necessary Conditions for the Successful Completion of Speech Acts

Austin emphasizes that although there is no truth or falsity in a given sentence, there are still some conditions that must be fulfilled, or else it will not serve to carry out the act. The first condition for the successful performance of an act through discourse is that the speaker must be the one who has the conditions to perform a certain act, and there must exist a suitable object to perform this act. For example, one cannot talk about bequeathing a watch without a watch. The second condition is that the speaker must be sincere, and in the absence of sincerity no act can be performed. The third condition is that the speaker cannot repudiate what he has said. If there is no proper procedure, if it is not uttered by the right person, the speech act will not work. Similarly, even if the person is suitable, it will not work if the occasion is not right. For example, if the Queen of England says ?InamehteshiptheQueenElizabeth? in her home, the words will not work either. For some acts of commission, the state of mind of the person concerned is crucial, e.g. a person who commits the act of making a promise must be prepared to honor his or her word.

(C) The speech act triad

As he got deeper into his research, Austin realized that in some sense every sentence can be used to perform an act, not just the performative sentences. Even typically descriptive, narrative verbs like ?state? can be used to perform behavior. When a person says ?IstatethatIamresponsibleforit?, he makes a statement and assumes a responsibility. Austin then divided the speech acts that people perform when they speak into three categories, namely ? To refer to things by words? (1ocution) (also called intra-speech behavior), ? (1ocution) (also known as intra-speech behavior), (2ocution), and (3ocution). (illocution) (also known as extra-linguistic behavior),? to make things happen with one's words. (perlo.cuifon) (also called post-speech behavior), or speech-act trichotomy. To speech refers to all meaningful words spoken with the voice; to speech act involves the intention of the speaker, such as: assertion, question, command, description, explanation, apology, thanks, congratulations, etc.; to speech into the matter involves the speaker in the listener to achieve the effect, such as: to make it happy, exhilaration, anger, fear, conviction, etc., in order to prompt the other party to do something or to give up the original intention. Each discourse accomplishes all three behaviors simultaneously. For example, A said ?Closehtedoor? to B, which is an intra-speech behavior; A's intention is to let B close the door, which is an extra-speech behavior; B closed the door after listening to A's words, which achieves the effect of speech, which is a post-speech behavior. It can be seen that the theory of speech acts is important for explaining the intention of speech acts.

In addition, Austin divided the extraverbal behavior into five categories: 1) evaluative behavior class/ruling class (verdictives): to express the ruling or evaluation, such as the judge or referee's ruling. 2) exertion of power behavior class/exercise class (ex?executives): to express the implementation of power. 3) commitment behavior class/commitment class (commissives): to express the commitment or declaration of intent. 4) reasoning behavior class / expositives (expositives): used to explain, expound, argue. 5) behavior class / manifestation class (behabitives): used to show attitude.

Second, Searle's development of the theory of speech acts

Austin's theory of speech acts immediately after the creation of a large number of philosophical discourse. Among them, the American philosopher Searle was the most influential, who systematized speech, articulated the principles and classification criteria of speech acts, and proposed the theory of indirect speech acts (indirectspeechacthteory), a special type of speech acts. It is through his efforts that the theory of speech acts has become an important part of today's pragmatics.

(I) Principles and Classification of Speech Acts

Searle did not simply inherit Austin's theory of speech acts; he elevated the study of isolated discourse meanings in speech act theory to the study of human communication. He sees the use of language, like many other human activities, as an intentional act governed by rules. These rules are distinguished as regulula?ifverules and consittuitverules. Regulating rules regulate pre-existing forms of behavior, an activity that exists logically independent of the existence of the rules; constitutive rules not only regulate but also create or prescribe new ways of behaving, an activity that exists logically dependent on the existence of the rules. [6 Austin attempts to argue for the hypothesis that the semantics of a language is regarded as a system of constitutive rules, and that the act of doing something with words is an act accomplished in accordance with such constitutive rules. Searle inherits Austin's ? intent? theory, which holds that to speak a language is to accomplish a series of speech activities, and that each speech act reflects the speaker's intention.

On the basis of his research and inheritance, Searle revised Austin's speech act theory into the theory of doing things with words and the theory of indirect speech acts. He transformed Austin's speech act trichotomy into propositional content and action by speech. He believed that in order to successfully perform a certain speech act, the following four conditions must be satisfied in addition to the general input and output conditions: first, the present conditions (essentialcondi-tions): the speaker intends to obligate him to perform a certain act by uttering an utterance; second, the propositional content conditions (con?tentconditions): The speaker expresses a proposition in uttering an utterance, and in expressing the proposition, the speaker asserts his future behavior; third, preparatoryconditions: 1) the hearer is willing for the speaker to carry out a certain act, and the speaker believes that what he is going to do is in the hearer's interest, but that this is not something that he does on a regular basis; 2) the speaker will go on to perform a certain act in the normal course of things, which is not obvious to both the speaker and the hearer. There is a certain point to be made in the act of speaking. There is a principle of minimum effort at work in language, embodied in the principle of minimum linguistic effort to obtain maximum results in speech; fourth, the condition of sincerity (sinceirtycondi?tions): the speaker intends to engage in a certain behavior. Of these four conditions, the fourth has the paradigm of a constitutive rule, while the first through third correspond to moderating rules. In the case of the combination of the ? lfexibilitycondition? (lfexibilityconditions) (conditions that guarantee the successful performance of a speech act) as a rule for the use of appropriate speech-acting indications, Searle also refers to the ? the principle of expression? that it alone can bring the analysis of essentially pragmatic speech acts into line with the semantic analysis of literal meaning, thus allowing the division of speech act theories into two categories: semantically?oriented theories of speech acts, which are pragmatically? oriented), the former focuses on the analysis of expressions that characterize speech acts, while the latter takes the communicative process as its starting point.

Searle reclassified speech acts into five categories, basing his classification on the different speech acts identified with ilocutionary and grammatical indicators and different? Words? and? world? s in relation to the world. These five types of speech acts are: 1) assertive (assertive), formerly also known as descriptive (repre.sentatives), refers to the description of the state of the world or the events of the speech acts, such as assertions, claims, reports, etc.; 2) instructions (directives), the speaker wants to make the listener to do something, such as suggestions, requests, commands, etc.; 3) commitment (commissives), the speaker wants to make the hearer do something, such as suggestions, requests, orders, etc.; 3) commitment (commissives), the speaker wants to make the hearer do something, such as suggestions, requests, orders, etc.; 3) commitment class ( commissives), referring to the speaker to indicate that he or she is going to do something speech act, such as promise, intimidation, etc.; 4) expression class (ex. pressives), in this speech act, the speaker expresses his or her own feelings and attitudes towards something, such as apologizing, complaining, thanking, congratulating, etc.; 5) declaring (declaratives), referring to a certain state of affairs in the world that can be changed. Speech acts, for example, the judge in the courtroom said: ?Guilyt! , the defendant becomes a sinner.

(ii) Indirect speech acts

Another major contribution of Searle to the theory of speech acts is the introduction of the theory of indirect speech acts. Indirect Speech Act Theory? A person directly through the literal meaning of the form of discourse to achieve its communicative intent, which is the direct speech act; when we through the form of discourse to achieve the effect outside the discourse itself, which is called indirect speech act (indi?rcctspeechact). Simply put, an indirect speech act is the performance of an extraverbal act by doing another extraverbal act, which can also be described as: ? Indirectly performing one extraverbal act by performing another extraverbal act.? The indirect speech act theory addresses the question of how speakers can indirectly perform an extraverbal act by? literal meaning? to express an indirect? Extraverbal force? or how the hearer derives an indirect extraverbal force from the speaker's literal intention. literal meaning? or how the listener can infer from the speaker's literal meaning the indirect? The power beyond words, i.e. the pragmatic meaning. i.e., discursive intent. Searle puts forward the theory of statute indirect speech act and non-statute indirect speech act, the so-called statute indirect speech act, refers to the theory of? The so-called statutory indirect speech act refers to the indirect speech act on how to use the intention? The so-called statutory indirect speech act refers to the indirect speech act of making general inferences. The so-called general inference to the literal meaning is actually based on the syntactic form of the discourse, according to the custom can be immediately inferred from the indirect? The power beyond words? (discursive intent). Non-statutory indirect speech acts are more complex and less stable. Statutory indirect speech act according to custom can be inferred from the words of the indirect meaning of speech, but non-statutory indirect speech act but mainly rely on both sides of the speaker *** know the linguistic information and the context in which to infer.

Indirect speech behavior is very common in verbal communication, the statement is not a statement, the imperative sentence is not an imperative sentence, the question is not a question abounds. Sometimes, the speaker says a sentence, through which the literal meaning of the sentence, but at the same time to express the meaning of other than literal, that is to say, the meaning of the discourse and the meaning of the statement itself is not completely consistent. For example: Can you givemethe book? The literal meaning is to ask the listener whether he or she has the ability to do so, but the implication is often a request. The request is sent in the form of an inquiry, but also expresses the verbal act of requesting. As for how to understand non-statutory indirect speech like ?It?Scoldinhere...? These non-statutory indirect speech acts ten, the situation is more complicated. The speaker may actually be stating this fact, or he may be asking the other person to close a window or door, or to turn on the electric heating. When this happens, the listener needs to rely on context, mutual *** knowledge, or pragmatic reasoning, among other things, in order to be effective.

Indirect speech act of the manifestation of a variety of forms, factors affecting the understanding of indirect speech act is also multi-faceted, sometimes depending on the context, sometimes depending on the identity of the listener, background, etc., and some also depends on the listener's ability to analyze, reasoning. Therefore, the understanding of indirect speech acts is not simply a semantic category, but also includes the pragmatic category.

Conclusion

The speech act theorists represented by Austin and Searle shifted the language study from focusing on the structure of the sentence itself to the meaning, intention and social function expressed by the sentence. The introduction of speech act theory has had a significant impact on both language research and applied linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and language acquisition research. On the one hand, it makes scholars shift their research from focusing on grammar or language form to focusing on speech function; from focusing on a single sentence to focusing on a discourse; from focusing on the language itself to focusing on language users, associations and the language environment, etc. On the other hand, verbal behavior theory makes a lot of researches shift from focusing on linguistic knowledge to focusing on the communicative function; and it also makes the teaching and learning of foreign languages shift from focusing on language form and teaching method to focusing on the communicative function. On the other hand, the theory of speech act has shifted many researches from focusing on language knowledge to focusing on communicative function; it has also shifted foreign language teaching from focusing on language form and teaching method to focusing on language function and teaching content. In this way, learners not only master a certain amount of vocabulary and grammatical knowledge, know the correct sentence structure, but also learn how to use the language appropriately to avoid pragmatic errors. Thus speech act theory is the basic theory for studying the problem of language use, and it opens up a new field for the study of linguistics.

Austin and Searle's Speech Act Theory Sample Essay 2: "An Analysis of Austin and Searle's Philosophical View of Language through Speech Act Theory"

[Keywords for the paper] Speech Act Theory Indirect Speech Act Theory Philosophy of Language

[Abstract of the paper] At the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a fundamental? language shift? , in which language replaced epistemology as the central subject of philosophical research. 1962 British philosopher Austin proposed the ? Speech Act Theory? This concept was followed by the American philosopher Searle's famous theory of indirect speech acts. Indirect speech act theory?

Speech Act Theory (Speech Act Theory) was first proposed by the British philosopher J. L. Austin of Oxford University in 1962 in his famous philosophical work On How to Do Things with Words. The basic starting point of speech act theory is that:the basic unit of human linguistic communication should not be words, sentences, or other linguistic forms, but rather the acts that people accomplish with words or sentences (Aus-tin, 1962). By focusing his attention on the use of language as a behavior, Austin captured the dynamic features of language and opened up the path of studying the use of language from the perspective of behavior.

Searle ((J. R. Searle) was a student of Austin's, and he agreed with Austin's view that the smallest unit of linguistic communication is not a symbol, word, or sentence, but some kind of speech act that has been completed. However, his understanding of ? speech act itself eve, as opposed to ? the words uttered to complete the speech act? He distinguishes between these two concepts, arguing that they are not entirely equivalent and should not be confused. Searle systematically developed Austin's idea of speech acts, elaborated the principles and classification criteria of speech acts, and proposed the theory of indirect speech acts as a special type of speech acts. Both Austin and Searle are philosophers of language, and their studies of language are conducted on the philosophical track.? The theory of speech acts? s proposal has changed people's understanding of the nature of language, providing a new line of thought for our comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon and nature of language mouth

I. Austin's Contribution to the Theory of Speech Acts

The theory of speech acts argues that, fundamentally, discourse is a kind of behavior, which not only contains ? Words have statements? and it contains not only what is said, but also what is done. speech is a behavior that not only involves ? and even involves? It even involves the consequences of what is said (Austin, 1962). (Austin, 1962) o

The founder of speech act theory was Austin, a British philosopher of language. Austin characterized? sentences that have something to say about them are called predicative sentences. sentences called constatives, such as the sentence ? China in Asia? and? It is raining? These two sentences have true or false values, i.e., for these two sentences, we can ask:? Is this sentence true? On the other hand, he puts? words have a value of true or false. He called the sentence ? C performatives ), such as when a teacher says to a student: ? I require you to listen carefully. At first, Austin focuses his main efforts on the analysis of? C performatives and (a) the distinction between the imperative and the imperative. and the distinction between them. However, as his research progressed further, he realized that the distinction between predicative and imperative clauses was untenable. Because, according to him, the typical syntax of a gerund is ? I + the applicative verb (present tense direct active voice) (+ other constituents)? (+ other constituents), such as ? I order, ? I announce, ? I request, etc. However, predicative sentences can also use this form, such as ? I declare that I am a singer? The speaker is making an announcement, an act, on the one hand, and a statement on the other. Therefore, he found that there is no substantial difference between the concepts of predicative and imperative sentences.

The abandonment of the distinction between the declarative sentence and the giver sentence marks a new leap in Austin's exploration of speech act theory. He realized that, in the final analysis, the only phenomenon we are trying to elucidate is a complete speech act done in a complete speech context. This is when he came up with his famous ? The speech act triad? , that is, when a person speaks, in most cases, three kinds of behaviors are performed at the same time? Speaking behavior (locutionary act), the act of giving things (illocutionary act) and taking effect behavior (perlocutionary act). Colloquially speaking, speaking behavior refers to the utterance of idiomatic and meaningful words for the speaker; the act of giving things refers to a specific context to give meaningful words a kind of ? Speech act force" (illocutionary force), that is, the language force, for the speaker; take effect behavior refers to the act of speaking or the act of giving things in the listener to produce some kind of effect, for the speaker and the listener **** with the same.

Austin first proposed the concept of speech act in the modern philosophical sense, but he died prematurely before he could further develop his theory of speech act. However, this theory soon caused great repercussions in the philosophical and linguistic circles, because it organically links the objective world, human thinking, and language, and makes people's understanding of language rise to an unprecedented new height.

Second, Searle's development of the theory of speech acts: the theory of indirect speech acts formally appeared

Searle first put forward the theory of indirect speech acts. Indirect speech act? The concept of indirect speech act, according to him, indirect speech act theory to solve the problem is: how the speaker through the? literal meaning? to express the indirect? How does the listener get the power from the literal meaning of the words? or how the hearer gets the indirect power from the speaker's literal meaning. literal meaning? or how the listener can infer from the speaker's literal meaning the indirect? Extra-linguistic power. ( Searle ,1965)

Indirect speech acts are very common in language communication, statement is not a statement, imperative sentence is not an imperative, question is not a question abound. So, in the actual speech act communication process, how to implement and understand this indirect speech act? Searle classifies indirect speech acts into two kinds: statutory and non-statutory. The so-called statute indirect speech act refers to the interpretation of ? literal meaning? Indirect speech acts that can be derived from a general inference. This kind of behavior has formed a kind of customary use or language form, the speaker and the listener may not feel this kind of speech act in the literal implementation of the intention. Non-statutory indirect speech acts are more complex and uncertain, and depend more on mutually known background information and the context in which they are performed.

Austin is credited with opening up the path of studying language use from the perspective of behavior, while Searle systematized and tightened the theory of speech acts, which not only enriched the theory of speech acts, but also provided a strong theoretical basis for explaining the phenomenon of inconsistency between the form and function of language. It explains why and how people make extensive use of indirect speech acts in communication, making it clear that it is important to understand not only the literal meaning of the discourse and the content of the communication, but also the speaker's purpose and the context in which the speech is taking place, which is important for us to re-understand the meaning of ? Language? This provides a new perspective for philosophical reflection on the concept.

Austin and Searle's Philosophical View of Language

1. Philosophical Background of Speech Act Theory

There is a profound historical background for the emergence of speech act theory, which can be traced back to the origin of the theory, which can be examined in connection with the development of Western philosophy. The development of Western philosophy from Ancient Greece to the 20th century is usually summarized as a three-stage model, with the central thesis of ontology, epistemology and language. The linguistic shift occurred in Western philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century, giving rise to the philosophy of language. The philosophy of language arose in the early 20th century. The so-called language turn refers to the fact that philosophy takes the research object of language as its own research object, analyzes and researches language from the perspective of philosophy, especially the philosophical research on the meaning and use of language. (Fu Xitao, 2004) As far as the philosophy of language is concerned, ? Its primary task lies in clarifying the meanings of words and utterances through linguistic analysis, so that we can use language in an appropriate and accurate way and thus express our thoughts effectively? (Tu Jiliang, 1996). The reason for the emergence of the Western philosophical? the turn to language? is because philosophers realize that whether they study existence or cognition, they must first figure out the meaning of language, and the study of the meaning of language is the primary task of the philosophy of language. The speech act theory originated from the study of meaning by philosophers. 2. Austin's Philosophical View of Language

? The linguistic turn? s emergence marked the beginning of the era of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. From the point of view of the analytic methods used, analytic philosophy is subdivided into two major schools. One is the logical-analytic school, also known as the logical-positivist school. Logical empirical school advocates from the logical aspect of the analysis of scientific language statements or propositions in the logical structure, they hold an assumption that: the role of the statement of the word is either to describe the state of things, or is a statement of a certain fact, both of which must have one of them, or else the words out of the words is meaningless, and the statement of the words made by the description or the statement can only be true or fallacy, and must meet the semantic truth value The condition that such statements must be verifiability, that is, they can be verified as true or false. (Yule, 2000) The second is the School of Everyday Analysis, also known as the School of Everyday Language. The school of everyday language focuses on the analysis of everyday language, i.e. natural language. The British philosopher Austin, who belonged to the Everyday Language School, took issue with the truth-valued conditional semantics of logical positivism, arguing that ? many statements are nothing more than ? Pseudo-statements (pseudo- statement), that much of what people say may appear to be statements, but that they do not aim at all, or only partially, to frankly recount or convey information about facts (Austin, 1962). (Austin, 1962). In exploring the relationship between language and behavior, he begins by noting the fact that human beings utter words not only to provide information, but also to accomplish many other behaviors. In other words, language is not only used to describe and state the objective world, but it is also a behavior. He points out that: ? The so-called ? meaningless? Pseudo-statements? are not meant to be used for making statements; their significance lies in doing things with words. This is the starting point of Austin's theory of speech acts and the core value of his philosophical views.

3. Searle's Philosophy of Language

Searle, an American philosopher of language, inherited and developed Austin's theory of speech acts, and put forward the famous theory of indirect speech acts. Searle's theoretical construction is reflected in his distinction between linguistic philosophy and the philosophy of language. While the philosophy of linguistics attempts to solve special philosophical problems by analyzing the ordinary usage of particular words and other components of language, the philosophy of language attempts to give a philosophical expository description of the general features of language. In Searle's view, the former is a study of method, while the latter is a study of the subject. Searle believes that his theory belongs to the philosophy of language rather than the philosophy of linguistics. In the course of the philosophy of language, Searle defines the speech act as the smallest unit of linguistic communication, and places the speech act at the center of the study of language, meaning and communication.

Searle's indirect speech act theory has made positive contributions to the development of Western philosophy, which is summarized in the following three aspects; firstly, he studies the language phenomenon from the perspective of speech acts, breaking the traditional static study of language (Liang Jun, 2000); secondly, Searle's study of the classification criteria of extraverbal acts is a major contribution of his to the modern philosophy of language (Han Jingjing. 2009); again, his overall study of speech act theory has strongly contributed to the further development of philosophy of language. Searle systematized and rigorized Austin's theory of speech acts and discussed it in a larger philosophical context, emphasizing the study of extra-speech acts and the influence and effect of the speaker's conscious activities and mental states on speech acts, thus making him undoubtedly an iconic symbol and leader in the study of the philosophy of linguistic analysis since the 1980s.

IV. Conclusion

Philosophy is the science of thinking, and language is the carrier of thinking, and the emergence of the theory of speech acts is both a philosophical reflection on language and a new development of the philosophy of language. The two philosophers represented by Austin and Searle have made great contributions to the exploration of speech act theory:Austin raised this common sense of people's use of language to philosophical elaboration, opening the ? Austin raised the common sense of people's use of language to philosophical elaboration, pioneering the study of language use from the perspective of behavior. This road of the precedent; Searle on this basis and the theory of verbal behavior systematization, rigorous, the development of the theory of verbal behavior has made indelible contributions to the development of language research and philosophy of language research opened up a new world.

>>> Next more exciting? Austin and Searle's Theoretical Examples of Speech Behavior?