Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts

By John R. Searle. 1979

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Explanation in Human-AI Systems: A Literature Meta-Review, Synopsis of Key Ideas and Publications, and Bibliography for Explainable AI (2019, background): “al pertinent references are: (Blokpoel et al., 2012; Cardona-Rivera, Price, Winer, and Young, 2016; Core, et al., 2006; Gkatzia, Lemon, and Rieser, 2016; Grice, 1975; Rips, Brem, and Bailenson, 1999; Searle, 1985; Slugoski ) DARPA#TAB#XAI#TAB#Literature#TAB#Review p.#TAB#13 Team Science The literatu”
Formulating a Revised Taxonomy for Modes of Listening (2012, background): “For example, according to Searle ( 1979 ), the context-situated intention to utter a speech act (e.”
Language Proficiency Interviews: A Discourse Approach (2012, background): “Searle (1969, 1979), in an effort to systematize Austin, proposes five major classes of acts that utterances perform: representatives (e.g., asserting, stating), directives (e.g., requests), commissives (e.g., promises), expressives (e.g., apologies, compliments), and declarations (e.g., naming).”
Compliance, resistance and incipient compliance when responding to directives (2012, background): “Considerable research has been conducted into directives within various disciplines (e.g. Ervin-Tripp, 1976; Goodwin, 1990, 2006; Searle, 1979).”
The development of argumentive discourse skill (2001, background): “These codes fall under the category of directives in Searle’s (1979) taxonomy of speech acts.”
A metaphor-enriched social cognition. (2010, background): “…cognitive import quickly waned, however, and for the major part of philosophical history, metaphors either were denounced as obfuscating objective truth (Hobbes, 1651/1962; Locke, 1689/ 1997) or dismissed as mere stylistic embellishments of language (Davidson, 1978; Rorty, 1989; Searle, 1979).”
Speaker meaning and accountability in interaction (2013, unknown): “…reasons for action was being developed in the work of Austin (1962), and was subsequently developed in the work on the illocutionary force of speech acts (Searle, 1969, 1979), as well as in Brandom’s (1994) notion of “discursive commitment”, and Clark’s (1996) notion of “joint commitment”.”
Functions of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary Force (2010, background): “The analysis of illocutionary acts performed through linguistic utterances (also called the illocutionary force of these utterances) was further developed by Searle (1969, 1979).”
Configurational Properties of Point of View Roles (2011, background): “(eg., ORDER, PERMIT, BLAME, FORGIVE, BAPTIZE, WARN, PRAISE…) Searle (1979) classifies illocutionary acts into five basic categories: (7) assertives: where we tell our hearers (truly or falsely) how things are directives: where we get them to do things commissives: where we commit ourselves to doing ”
A Linguistic Framework for Knowledge, Belief, and Veridicality Judgment (2021, background): “attitudes and the types of evidence in which attitudes are rooted.(47) According to commonwisdom, belief follows from theworld,whereas desire, for instance, projects a world.”