Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Speech acts and arguments

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Speech act theory seems to provide a promising avenue for the analysis of the functional organization of argument. The theory, however, might be taken to suggest that arguments are a homogenous class of speech act with a specifiable illocutionary force and a single set of felicity conditions. This suggestion confuses the analysis of the meaning of speech act verbs with the analysis of the pragmatic structure of actual language use. Suggesting that arguments are conveyed through a homogeneous class of linguistic action overlooks the way in which the context of activity and the form of expression organize the argumentative functions performed in using language. An alternative speech act analysis would treat folk terminology as a heuristic entry point into the development of a technical analysis of the myriad argumentative functions and structures to be found in natural language use. This would lead to a thorough-going pragmatic analysis of the rational and functional design of speech acts in argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atkinson, J. M. and J. Heritage (eds.): 1984, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. L.: 1975, How to Do Things with Words, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish: 1979, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, R. L.: 1987, ‘Utterance and Commitment: A Speech Act Analysis’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 18–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiberg, S. and L. Churchill: 1975, ‘Notes on Confrontation in Conversation’, Journal of Psycholingistic Research 4, 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R.: 1979, ‘On the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments: Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 15, 137–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burleson, B. R.: 1981, ‘The Senses of Argument Revisited: Prolegomena to Future Characterizations of Argument’, in G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes (eds.), Dimensions of Argument: Proceedings of the Second Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 955–979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cathcart, R. S.: 1978, ‘Movements: Confrontation as Rhetorical Form’, Southern Speech Communication Journal 43, 233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cathcart, R. S.: 1980, ‘Defining Social Movements by Their Rhetorical Form’, Central States Speech Journal 31, 267–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1982, ‘The Speech Acts of Arguing and Convincing in Externalized Discussions’, Journal of Pragmatics 6, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ervin-Tripp, S.: 1976, ‘Is Sybil There? The Structure of American English Directives’, Language in Society 5, 25–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, A.: 1980, ‘An Extended Theory of Speech Acts: Appropriateness Conditions for Subordinate Acts in Sequences’, Journal of Pragmatics 4, 233–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frentz, T. S. and T. B. Farrell: 1976, ‘Language-Action: A Paradigm for Communication’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 62, 333–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, H.: 1956, ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’, American Journal of Sociology 61, 420–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnamus, O. K.: 1987, ‘Argumentation and Persuasion’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 103–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, M. H.: 1982, ‘Processes of Dispute Management among Urban Black Children’, American Ethnologist 9, 76–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, D. and G. Lakoff: 1975, ‘Conversational Postulates’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, R. B.: 1971, ‘The Ego-Function of the Rhetoric of Protest’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 4, 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grootendorst, R.: 1987, ‘Everyday Argumentation from a Speech Act Perspective’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher, M.: 1979, ‘The Classification of Co-operative Illocutionary Acts’, Language in Society 8, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, ‘Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., S. Jacobs, N. Burrell and M. Allen: 1986, ‘Characterizing Ordinary Argument: Substantive and Methodological Issues’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 23, 42–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1982, ‘The Rhetoric of Witnessing and Heckling: A Case Study in Ethnorhetoric’, diss., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1983, ‘When Worlds Collide: An Application of Field Theory to Rhetorical Conflict’, in D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars and J. Rhodes (eds.), Argument in Transition: Proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 749–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1985, ‘Language’, in M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills., pp. 313–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1986, ‘How to Make an Argument from Example in Discourse Analysis’, in D. G. Ellis and W. A. Donohue (eds.), Contemporary Issues in Language and Discourse Processes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ., pp. 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1987, ‘The Management of Disagreement in Conversation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1981, ‘Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 118–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1982, ‘Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, pp. 205–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1983a. ‘Strtegy and Structure in Conversational Influence Attempts’, Communication Monographs 50, 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1983b, ‘Speech Act Structure in Conversation: Rational Aspects of Pragmatic Coherence’, in R. T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds.), Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 47–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: in press, ‘Building a Model of Conversational Argument’, in B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. O'Keefe and E. Wartella (eds.), Paradigm Dialogues in Communication Vol. 2: Exemplars, Sage, Beverly Hills.

  • Jacobs, S., S. Jackson, J. Hallmark, B. Hall and S. Stearns: 1987, ‘Ideal Argument in the Real World: Making Do in Mediation’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 291–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W. and D. Fanshel: 1977, Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C.: 1979, ‘Activity Types and Language’, Linguistics 17, 365–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. C.: 1981, ‘Some Pre-Observations on the Modelling of Dialogue’, Discourse Processes 4, 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. W. and D. R. Scheerhorn: 1985, ‘What are Conversational Arguments? Toward a Natural Language User's Perspective’, in J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars and G. B. Walker (eds.), Argument and Social Practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 705–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J. L.: 1978, ‘Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts’, in P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 261–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, S. E. and R. K. Stutman: 1987, ‘The Expression of Dissatisfaction: When Does Complaint Count as Confrontation?‘, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 449–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninio, A.: 1986, ‘The Illocutionary Aspect of Utterances’, Discourse Processes 9, 127–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe, D. J.: 1977, ‘Two Concepts of Argument’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 121–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Keefe, D. J.: 1982, ‘The Concepts of Argument and Arguing’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, pp. 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, M.: 1983, Apologies and Remedial Exchanges: A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction, Mouton, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pander Maat, H.: 1987, ‘Arguer Goals and the Termination of Dialogical Arguments’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 110–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randall, R. A.: 1982, ‘Review of Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs by Th. Ballmer and W. Brennenstuhl’, Language in Society 11, 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A.: 1988, ‘Presequences and Indirection’, Journal of Pragmatics 12, 55–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenkein, J. (ed): 1978, Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R.: 1969, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R.: 1975, ‘Indirect Speech Acts’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 59–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. R: 1976, ‘The Classification of Illocutionary Acts’, Language in Society 5, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapp, R.: 1986, ‘The Role of Disagreement in Interactional Argument’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 23, 23–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trapp, R.: 1987, ‘On the Characteristics of Interactional Argument: A Response to Jackson, Jacobs, Burrel and Allen’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 24, 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verscueren, J.: 1980, On Speech Act Verbs, John Benjamins B. V., Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, J. W.: 1980, ‘Perspectives on Argument’, in J. Rhodes and S. Newell (eds), Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA., pp. 112–133.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma, 73019, Norman, OK, USA

    Scott Jacobs

Authors
  1. Scott Jacobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacobs, S. Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation 3, 345–365 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182603

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182603

Key words

Search

Navigation