The trouble is ‘in what way are the locution is used’. When the performing of a locutionary act, the speech is used, but in what way precisely are the speech used?
For there are very numerous functions of or ways in which the speech used, and it makes a great difference to our act in some sense. Which way and which sense the
speech is being ‘used’. It makes a great difference whether it was advising, or merely suggesting, or actually ordering, whether it was strictly promising or only
announcing a vague intention, and so forth. For example, in order to make a promise one must make clear to one’s hearer
that the act she is performing is promise, and in the performance of the act one will be undertaking an obligation to do the promise thing: so promising is an illocutionary
act. In other words, illocutionary act is the contextual function of the utterance. Performance of an act in saying something as opposed to performance of an act of
saying something; Austin refers to types of function of language or what Austin
called ‘illocutionary forces’.
2.2.2.1. Illocutionary classification
Austin 1962: 150 made classes of utterance, classified according to their illocutionary force, by the following more-or-less rebarbative names:
1. Verdictives
2. Exercitives
3. Commissives
4. Behabitives
5. Expositives
Universitas Sumatera Utara
1 Verdictives
Verdictives is the utterance in which the speaker is verdicting something. Verdictives consist of utterances used in delivering findings, official or unofficial
based on evidence. “Verdictives are typified by the giving of a verdict, as the name
implies, by a jury, arbitrator, or umpire. But they need not be final; they may be, for example, an estimate, reckoning, or appraisal. It is
essentially giving a finding as to something-fact, or value which is for different reasons hard to be certain about.” Austin 1962: 150
Examples by Austin 1962: 152: Acquit
convict find as a matter of fact
Hold as a matter of fact interpret as
understand read it as
rule calculate
reckon estimate
locate grade
rank rate
assess value
describe characterize
diagnose analyze
date measure
place
Austin 1962: 152 continues explaining: “A verdictives is a judicial act as distinct from legislative or executive
acts, which are both exercitives. But some judicial acts, in the wider sense that they are done by judges instead of for example, juries,
really are exercitives. Verdictives have obvious connexions with truth and falsity as regards soundness and unsoundness or fairness and
unfairness. That the content of a verdict is true or false is shown, for example, in a dispute over an umpire’s calling ‘Out’, ‘Three strikes’,
or ‘Four balls’.”
2 Exercitives
Exercitives cover utterances that involve some authority. Austin 1962: 150 explains exercitives are the exercising of powers, rights, or influence. They are
Universitas Sumatera Utara
characterized by the giving of a decision in favor of or against a certain course of action. It is a very wide class.
Examples by Austin 1962: 154:
appoint degrade
demote dismiss
excommunicate name
order command
direct sentence
fine grant
levy vote for
nominate choose
claim give
Bequeath pardon
resign Warn
advise plead
Pray entreat
beg Urge
press recommend
Proclaim announce
quash Countermand
annul repeal
Enact reprieve
veto Dedicate
declare closed declare open
3 Commissives
Commissives are typified by promising or otherwise undertaking. The whole point of a commissives is to commit the speaker to a certain course of action.
Examples by Austin 1962: 156: Promise
covenant contract
Undertake bind myself
give my word Determined to
intend declare my intention
Mean to plan
purpose Propose to
shall contemplate
Envisage engage
swear Guarantee
pledge myself bet
Vow agree
consent Dedicate myself to
declare for side with
Adopt champion
embrace Espouse
oppose favor
Universitas Sumatera Utara
4 Behabitives
Behabitives are a very miscellaneous group, and have to do with attitudes and social behavior. Examples are apologizing, congratulating, commending, condoling,
cursing, and challenging. “Behabitives are a class of speech acts used in reaction to other
people’s behavior and fortune and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else’s past conduct or imminent conduct. There
are obvious connections with both stating or describing what our feelings are and expressing, in the sense of venting our feelings,
though behabitives are distinct from both of these.” Austin 1962: 159
Examples by Austin 1962: 159: a.
For apologies we have ‘apologize’. b.
For thanks we have ‘thank’. c.
For sympathy we have ‘deplore’, ‘commiserate’, ‘compliment’, ‘condole’, ‘congratulate’, ‘felicitate’, ‘sympathize’.
d. For attitudes we have ‘resent’, ‘don’t mind’, ‘tribute’, ‘criticize’, ‘grumble
about’, ‘complain of’, ‘applaud’, ‘overlook’, ‘commend’, ‘deprecate’, and the non-exercitives uses of ‘blame’, ‘a approve’, and ‘favor’.
e. For greetings we have ‘welcome’, ‘bid you farewell’.
f. For wishes we have ‘bless’, ‘curse’, ‘toast’, ‘drink to’, and ‘wish’ in its strict
performatives use. g.
For challenges we have ‘dare’, ‘defy’, ‘protest’, ‘challenge’.
5 Expositives
Austin 1962: 151 explained that “expositives are difficult to define”. “They make plain how our utterances fit into the course of an argument
or conversation, how we are using words, or, in general, are expository. Expositives are used in acts of exposition involving the expounding of
Universitas Sumatera Utara
views, the conducting of arguments, and the clarifying of usages and of references. Examples are ‘I reply’, ‘I argue’, ‘I concede’, ‘I illustrate’,
‘I assume’, ‘I postulate’.”
Here then is a list of expositives by Austin 1962: 161: Affirm
deny state
describe class
Identity remark
mention interpose
inform Approse
tell answer
rejoin ask
Testify report
swear conjecture
doubt Know
believe accept
concede withdraw
Agree demur to
adhere to object to
recognize Repudiate
correct revise
postulate deduce
Argue neglect
emphasize begin to
turn to Conclude by
interpret distinguish
analyze define
Illustrate explain
formulate mean
refer Call
understand regard as
Based on Austin’s classification of illocutionary acts, it can be concluded that one can exercise judgment Verdictives, exert influence or exercise power
Exercitives, assume obligation or declare intention Commissives, adopt attitude, or express feeling Behabitives, and clarify reasons, argument, or communication
Expositives. Austin’s interest of his work for pragmatics also Searle 1969 centre around
illocutionary acts and illocutionary force understood as the functions or meanings associated with illocutionary acts. Therefore when the term ‘Speech Act Theory’ is
used in Pragmatics, it refers to illocutionary acts Collinge, 1990: 177.
2.2.3. Perlocutionary act