Speech Act theory

 Semantics is the study of literal meaning only. It studies what is the basic meaning of any utterance while on the other hand, Pragmatics studies the meaning of utterance with context as well. Pragmatics have a deeper study of things. We are dealing with meaning when working in the realm of pragmatics, that much is certain. Then again, what distinguishes Semantics from Pragmatics? It may be claimed, quite simply, that if we consider that semantics only deals with is uttered based on truth conditions while pragmatics focus on all types of meanings. The difference between semantics and pragmatics, according to Leech, rests in two distinct applications of the verb to mean.

Semantics and pragmatics are both concerned with meaning. Pragmatics' role is more significant than Semantics because it does not give basic meanings like semantics but also involves different things to prove this stance different theories like Presupposition and speech act theory are discussed  below

What is the theory of speech act?

Speech act theory is defined as a subfield of pragmatics that not only focuses on words but also on actions.

Both semantics and pragmatics, it seems, understand the significance of meaning, but they do so in different ways depending on the kind of meaning that is being considered. On the one hand, semantics is vital in identifying the truth-conditional meaning of this statement based on its formal elements. On the other hand, pragmatics is concerned with those components of meaning attributed to a language user. Speech acts are regarded as having a pragmatic significance of some form.

They describe utterances according to what they do, or their illocution, rather than according to what they actually say, or their location. Speech act theory analyzes the purpose of language rather than its structure, with structure serving only as a means of expression for the function (meaning).

The most important factor that contributed to the development of the speech act theory was the limiting of semantic analysis based on truth conditions; semantic treatment was thus limited to a single class of sentences, the so-called "statements" or declarations, which are sentences that must be verified as true or false by certain universal truths.

Example 1: Harry: I would like the pepper.

As said by Harry to Sara, who is seated near the pepper, at a dinner table. Semantically, Harry does not intend to share his wish with Alice while he is eating, but instead pragmatically, he wants her to take his request for action (passing the pepper) to be the only meaning behind his speech.

Example 2: Consider the example when I tell someone in a crowded subway, "You're standing on my foot." Semantically, it indicates that I am notifying the person who is standing on my foot rather than expressing anything else. I'm probably attempting to convey the idea in a pragmatic sense by expressing content from other meanings expressed through speech that it hurts and he should move. What I literally say, though, is that the addressee in issue is standing on my foot. This is the essence of what I said. Many, if not most, utterances of grammatical sentences made of meaningful words express more than the contents of the sentences. However, pragmatists frequently separate content from other characteristics of meaning that an utterance conveys.

Types of speech act theory :

Basically, there are three types of speech act theory.

1) Locutionary Act

2) Illocutionary Act

3) Perlocutionary Act

1: Locutionary Act:

This act covers the meaning of saying something, something that is understandable for both the speaker and listener. Any utterance that just makes sense is an elocutionary act in this we use What, When, Who, How, etc.

For Example: When someone says something shocking and we say What.

Caution or Warning ( indicates something serious and dangerous).

2: Illocutionary Act:

Philosopher J.N Austin's purpose in this act covers demanding, requesting, suggesting, promising, and vowing-like acts. It has five kinds Directive, Assertive, Commissive, declarative, and expressive.

• Directive: In directive the speaker wants the hearer to do something by requesting him, ordering him, or questioning him.

For Example: Bring me a glass of water.

                 I beg you to help me.

                 

• Assertive: Assertive speech relies on truth means whatever the speaker says is based on truth or fact.

For Example, The moon is far away from us.

                  We cannot touch the Sun. 

• Commissive:  In this speech act the speaker commits some future action.

For Example: From now on, I promise you that I will work harder.

             I take a vow that if he will not give me my money, I will not spear you.

• Declarative: This includes baptizing and declaration kind of speech acts.

For Example, I  declare you both husband and wife.

• Expressive: In this speech act the speaker expresses his true inner feelings with the help of expressing words like Thank You, Sorry, etc.

For Example: Thank You for helping me.

                  I am extremely sorry that my words hurt you.

3: Perlocutionary Act:

This act covers convincing someone,  inspiring someone, insulting someone, making someone happy, or urging them to do something. In this act whatever the speaker says affects the listener.  In this act, both speaker and listener are needed. 

Presupposition:

A key concept in semantic and pragmatic fields is presupposition, which denotes a prior assumption. To properly comprehend an utterance, it is required for speakers to make certain implicit assumptions.

Presuppositions are background beliefs or implicit world assumptions that are related to an utterance whose reality is assumed to be true in conversation. The presupposition is mainly connected with the branch of Pragmatics because in this the meanings are derived by connecting background or context.

Semantics presupposition is applied to the structure of the sentence while the Pragmatic presupposition is applied to the utterance. Because a sentence is spoken in a context that inevitably incorporates other people, background information, world knowledge, etc., all of which fall under the domain of pragmatics, semantic analysis is considered to be inadequate.

Semantic presupposition is finally described as a connection between the world and basic phrase construction. However, this semantic idea of presupposition was created with a specific objective in mind, namely to make it easier to determine what is true and erroneous information from a given set of phrases. Because it is not a component of the phrase itself, this information is not claimed implied, or presupposed in the semantic sense.

Pragmatic Presupposition focuses on context to properly evaluate a speech concerning its truth or falsity. In this, we assume by relating context with the utterance.

Example 1: There is a dog on the mat.

This statement assumes that there is some dog and some mat that the addresser is referring to, regardless of whether it is true or not (whether or not there is a specific dog on a specific mat). Given the context in which the remark is said, the addresser may be complaining that the dog has ruined the mat. But if we see this example based on semantics presupposition we only understand that there is a dog and there is a mat.

Example 2: If a person asks his friend do you want a cup of coffee. And being told, "It will keep me awake, it is presumed that the addressee is aware of his friend's desire to remain awake. Therefore, it is impossible to extract this underlying assumption without knowing the context.

Example 3: Mr. Peter, can I get your rain boots?

In this example semantically we assume that the person wants rain boots from someone but according to Pragmatic presupposition, we will suppose with context that he does not have rain boots or maybe he forgot his shoes or it is raining outside therefore he wants rain boots from Mr. Peter.