Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This paper examines aspects of strategic interaction and the construction of the social actor in a neo-Austinian framework of illocutionary acts. The basic premise of the neo-Austinian framework is conventionality, according to which illocutionary acts depend on social agreement. An important part of the framework is the felicity condition of entitlement, directly related to the hearer’s understanding of the conventions that should hold for an act performance. Two strategies of challenging and/or rejecting illocutionary acts are then identified tentatively dubbed looping and backfiring, related to the hearer’s perception of when the entitlement felicity condition is flouted. Both strategies can be overtly or covertly confrontational and demonstrate that in their social quality illocutionary acts serve to construct the social actor and build up interpersonal relations.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Akinnaso, Niyi F.
    1985 “On the Similarities between Spoken and Written Language.” Language and Speech28(4): 323–359. 10.1177/002383098502800401
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383098502800401 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John L.
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.P.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, Kent, and Harnish, Robert M.
    1979Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Caffi, Claudia
    1999 “On Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics31: 881–909. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  5. Camerer, Colin
    2003Behavioral Game Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Clark, Herbert H. and Carlson, Thomas B.
    1982 “Hearers and Speech Acts.” Language58(2): 332–373. 10.1353/lan.1982.0042
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1982.0042 [Google Scholar]
  7. Dörge, Friedrich C.
    2004Illocutionary Acts: Austin’s Account and What Searle Made of It. PhD dissertation, Tübingen, URLdeposit.ddb.de/cgi-bin/dokserv?idn=979505232 (Retrieved01.06.2009).
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Goffman, Erving
    1959The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Grice, Paul H.
    1957 “Meaning.” Philosophical Review66(3): 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  10. Habermas, Jurgen
    2000On the Pragmatics of Communication. Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hansson, Sten
    2015 “Calculated Overcommunication: Strategic Uses of Prolixity, Irrelevance, and Repetition in Administrative Language.” Journal of Pragmatics84: 172–188. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.014 [Google Scholar]
  12. Holmes, Janet
    1984 “Modifying Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics8(3): 345–365. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Johnson, James
    1991 “Habermas on Strategic and Communicative Action.” Political Theory19(2): 181–201. 10.1177/0090591791019002003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591791019002003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Sbisà, Marina
    1984 “On Illocutionary Types.” Journal of Pragmatics8: 93–112. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90066‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90066-3 [Google Scholar]
  15. 1992 “Speech Acts, Effects and Responses.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. byHerman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 101–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.21.06sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.06sbi [Google Scholar]
  16. 2001 “Illocutionary Force and Degree of Strength in Language Use.” Journal of Pragmatics33(12): 1791–1814. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00060‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2002 “Speech Acts in Contexts.” Language and Communication22: 421–436. 10.1016/S0271‑5309(02)00018‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00018-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 “How to Read Austin.” Pragmatics17(3): 461–473. 10.1075/prag.17.3.06sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17.3.06sbi [Google Scholar]
  19. 2009 “Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics5(1): 33–52. 10.2478/v10016‑009‑0003‑0
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0 [Google Scholar]
  20. Sbisa, Marina
    2018 “Varieties of Speech Act Norms”. InNormativity and Variety of Speech Actions, ed. byMaciej Witek and Iwona Witczak-Pliciecka. Special issue ofPoznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities. doi:  10.1163/9789004366527_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004366527_003 [Google Scholar]
  21. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1979Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1983Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173452
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1992 “Conversation”. In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. byHerman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 7–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.21.02sea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.02sea [Google Scholar]
  25. Streeck, Jürgen
    1992 “The dispreferred other.” In(On) Searle on Conversation, ed. byHerman Parret and Jef Verschueren, 129–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.21.08str
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.08str [Google Scholar]
  26. Wee, Lionel
    2004 “‘Extreme Communicative Acts’ and the Boosting Of Illocutionary Force.” Journal of Pragmatics36(12): 2161–2178. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Witek, Maciej
    2015a “Mechanisms of Illocutionary Games.” Language and Communication42: 11–22. 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2015b “An Interactional Account Of Illocutionary Practice.” Language Sciences47: 43–55. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): challenging; entitlement; illocutionary acts; rejecting; social actor; strategic interaction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error