Austin
distinguishes between normal and parasitic uses of language according
to the intention of the speaker. He adds to this the context of
situation to understand the act meant to be performed by the utterance.
Thus, the context for him includes both the intention of the speaker and
the situation in which words were uttered. Searle reacts differently
concerning that point. Recognizing the interlocutionary act for him
depends mainly on the intention of the speaker. In fact, this made his
theory poorer in quality and accuracy than that of Austin. On the other
side, this made him escape certain criticism that was directed to
Austin's theory (Halion, Par. 8&9) However, Searle and Austin agree
on the main points of the theory and differ slightly on the surface
level. For example, they agree on the fact that each utterance has a
certain function intended by the interlocutor to be performed by the
listener or even the reader. A close reading of their classifications
concerning that theory would disclose that they are the same except for
one or two features added or subtracted to the theory of one of them.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق