The contemporary use of the oul' term goes back to J. Be the hokey here's a quare wan. L. Austin's development of performative utterances and his theory of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Speech acts are commonly taken to include such acts as promisin', orderin', greetin', warnin', invitin' and congratulatin'.
Locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts 
Speech acts can be analysed on three levels:
- A locutionary act, the performance of an utterance: the feckin' actual utterance and its ostensible meanin', comprisin' phonetic, phatic and rhetic acts correspondin' to the feckin' verbal, syntactic and semantic aspects of any meaningful utterance;
- an illocutionary act: the bleedin' pragmatic 'illocutionary force' of the feckin' utterance, thus its intended significance as a socially valid verbal action (see below);
- and in certain cases a feckin' further perlocutionary act: its actual effect, such as persuadin', convincin', scarin', enlightenin', inspirin', or otherwise gettin' someone to do or realize somethin', whether intended or not (Austin 19
Illocutionary acts 
The concept of an illocutionary act is central to the oul' concept of a speech act. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Although there are numerous opinions regardin' how to define 'illocutionary acts', there are some kinds of acts which are widely accepted as illocutionary, as for example promisin', orderin' someone, and bequeathin'.
Followin' the feckin' usage of, for example, John R, would ye believe it? Searle, "speech act" is often meant to refer just to the same thin' as the oul' term illocutionary act, which John L, be the hokey! Austin had originally introduced in How to Do Things with Words (published posthumously in 1962), so it is.
Accordin' to Austin's preliminary informal description, the bleedin' idea of an "illocutionary act" can be captured by emphasisin' that "by sayin' somethin', we do somethin'", as when someone issues an order to someone to go by sayin' "Go!", or when a holy minister joins two people in marriage sayin', "I now pronounce you husband and wife." (Austin would eventually define the "illocutionary act" in a feckin' more exact manner. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. )
An interestin' type of illocutionary speech act is that performed in the bleedin' utterance of what Austin calls performatives, typical instances of which are "I nominate John to be President", "I sentence you to ten years' imprisonment", or "I promise to pay you back." In these typical, rather explicit cases of performative sentences, the bleedin' action that the oul' sentence describes (nominatin', sentencin', promisin') is performed by the bleedin' utterance of the oul' sentence itself. Sufferin' Jaysus listen to this.
Classifyin' illocutionary speech acts 
Searle (1975) has set up the feckin' followin' classification of illocutionary speech acts:
- assertives = speech acts that commit an oul' speaker to the oul' truth of the oul' expressed proposition, e.g. recitin' an oul' creed
- directives = speech acts that are to cause the bleedin' hearer to take a holy particular action, e, the cute hoor. g. Whisht now. requests, commands and advice
- commissives = speech acts that commit a holy speaker to some future action, e. G'wan now and listen to this wan. g. Whisht now and eist liom. promises and oaths
- expressives = speech acts that express the oul' speaker's attitudes and emotions towards the proposition, e.g. Here's a quare one for ye. congratulations, excuses and thanks
- declarations = speech acts that change the reality in accord with the bleedin' proposition of the oul' declaration, e, fair play. g. G'wan now and listen to this wan. baptisms, pronouncin' someone guilty or pronouncin' someone husband and wife
Indirect speech acts 
In the bleedin' course of performin' speech acts we ordinarily communicate with each other. The content of communication may be identical, or almost identical, with the oul' content intended to be communicated, as when a stranger asks, "What is your name?"
However, the feckin' meanin' of the linguistic means used (if ever there are linguistic means, for at least some so-called "speech acts" can be performed non-verbally) may also be different from the feckin' content intended to be communicated. I hope yiz are all ears now. One may, in appropriate circumstances, request Peter to do the bleedin' dishes by just sayin', "Peter .. Jasus. , would ye believe it? !", or one can promise to do the feckin' dishes by sayin', "Me!" One common way of performin' speech acts is to use an expression which indicates one speech act, and indeed performs this act, but also performs a further speech act, which is indirect. Bejaysus here's a quare one right here now. One may, for instance, say, "Peter, can you open the bleedin' window?", thereby askin' Peter whether he will be able to open the feckin' window, but also requestin' that he does so, grand so. Since the request is performed indirectly, by means of (directly) performin' a bleedin' question, it counts as an indirect speech act. C'mere til I tell yiz.
Indirect speech acts are commonly used to reject proposals and to make requests. For example, an oul' speaker asks, "Would you like to meet me for coffee?" and another replies, "I have class." The second speaker used an indirect speech act to reject the bleedin' proposal. Sufferin' Jaysus listen to this. This is indirect because the bleedin' literal meanin' of "I have class" does not entail any sort of rejection. Here's a quare one.
This poses a holy problem for linguists because it is confusin' (on a holy rather simple approach) to see how the feckin' person who made the bleedin' proposal can understand that his proposal was rejected. Here's a quare one. Followin' substantially an account of H. P, grand so. Grice, Searle suggests that we are able to derive meanin' out of indirect speech acts by means of a cooperative process out of which we are able to derive multiple illocutions; however, the bleedin' process he proposes does not seem to accurately solve the problem, Lord bless us and save us. Sociolinguistics has studied the oul' social dimensions of conversations, grand so. This discipline considers the bleedin' various contexts in which speech acts occur.
John Searle's theory of "indirect speech acts" 
Searle has introduced the oul' notion of an 'indirect speech act', which in his account is meant to be, more particularly, an indirect 'illocutionary' act. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. Applyin' a bleedin' conception of such illocutionary acts accordin' to which they are (roughly) acts of sayin' somethin' with the bleedin' intention of communicatin' with an audience, he describes indirect speech acts as follows: "In indirect speech acts the speaker communicates to the bleedin' hearer more than he actually says by way of relyin' on their mutually shared background information, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, together with the feckin' general powers of rationality and inference on the part of the hearer. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. " An account of such act, it follows, will require such things as an analysis of mutually shared background information about the oul' conversation, as well as of rationality and linguistic conventions. Bejaysus here's a quare one right here now.
In connection with indirect speech acts, Searle introduces the notions of 'primary' and 'secondary' illocutionary acts. The primary illocutionary act is the indirect one, which is not literally performed. The secondary illocutionary act is the oul' direct one, performed in the bleedin' literal utterance of the bleedin' sentence (Searle 178). In the bleedin' example:
- (1) Speaker X: "We should leave for the show or else we’ll be late. Bejaysus here's a quare one right here now. "
- (2) Speaker Y: "I am not ready yet. Me head is hurtin' with all this raidin'. "
Here the primary illocutionary act is Y's rejection of X's suggestion, and the oul' secondary illocutionary act is Y's statement that she is not ready to leave, that's fierce now what? By dividin' the feckin' illocutionary act into two subparts, Searle is able to explain that we can understand two meanings from the bleedin' same utterance all the feckin' while knowin' which is the bleedin' correct meanin' to respond to.
With his doctrine of indirect speech acts Searle attempts to explain how it is possible that a holy speaker can say somethin' and mean it, but additionally mean somethin' else. This would be impossible, or at least it would be an improbable case, if in such a holy case the bleedin' hearer had no chance of figurin' out what the speaker means (over and above what she says and means). C'mere til I tell ya. Searle's solution is that the oul' hearer can figure out what the bleedin' indirect speech act is meant to be, and he gives several hints as to how this might happen, so it is. For the oul' previous example Direct Speech and Indirect Speech "While direct speech purports to give a feckin' verbatim rendition of the oul' words that were spoken, indirect speech is more variable in claimin' to represent a faithful report of the content or content and form of the feckin' words that were spoken. G'wan now. It is important to note, however, that the question of whether and how faithful a bleedin' given speech report actually is, is of an oul' quite different order. Both direct and indirect speech are stylistic devices for conveyin' messages. The former is used as if the bleedin' words bein' used were those of another, which are therefore pivoted to a deictic center different from the speech situation of the report. Right so. Indirect speech, in contrast, has its deictic center in the bleedin' report situation and is variable with respect to the oul' extent that faithfulness to the oul' linguistic form of what was said is bein' claimed." (Florian Coulmas, "Reported Speech: Some General Issues. Would ye believe this shite?" a holy condensed process might look like this:
- Step 1: A proposal is made by X, and Y responded by means of an illocutionary act (2).
- Step 2: X assumes that Y is cooperatin' in the bleedin' conversation, bein' sincere, and that she has made a statement that is relevant.
- Step 3: The literal meanin' of (2) is not relevant to the oul' conversation. Story?
- Step 4: Since X assumes that Y is cooperatin'; there must be another meanin' to (2). Whisht now.
- Step 5: Based on mutually shared background information, X knows that they cannot leave until Y is ready. Therefore, Y has rejected X's proposition. Here's another quare one.
- Step 6: X knows that Y has said somethin' in somethin' other than the oul' literal meanin', and the feckin' primary illocutionary act must have been the feckin' rejection of X's proposal.
Searle argues that a similar process can be applied to any indirect speech act as a feckin' model to find the oul' primary illocutionary act (178), would ye swally that? His proof for this argument is made by means of a bleedin' series of supposed "observations" (ibid. Bejaysus this is a quare tale altogether. , to be sure. , 180-182), be the hokey!
Analysis usin' Searle's theory 
In order to generalize this sketch of an indirect request, Searle proposes a feckin' program for the bleedin' analysis of indirect speech act performances, whatever they are. Arra' would ye listen to this. He makes the bleedin' followin' suggestion:
- Step 1: Understand the oul' facts of the oul' conversation. G'wan now.
- Step 2: Assume cooperation and relevance on behalf of the bleedin' participants, the shitehawk.
- Step 3: Establish factual background information pertinent to the feckin' conversation. Here's another quare one for ye.
- Step 4: Make assumptions about the bleedin' conversation based on steps 1–3.
- Step 5: If steps 1–4 do not yield a feckin' consequential meanin', then infer that there are two illocutionary forces at work.
- Step 6: Assume the bleedin' hearer has the bleedin' ability to perform the oul' act the oul' speaker suggests, would ye believe it? The act that the feckin' speaker is askin' be performed must be somethin' that would make sense for one to ask, like. For example, the hearer might have the feckin' ability to pass the salt when asked to do so by a speaker who is at the feckin' same table, but not have the bleedin' ability to pass the feckin' salt to a holy speaker who is askin' the oul' hearer to pass the bleedin' salt durin' a telephone conversation.
- Step 7: Make inferences from steps 1–6 regardin' possible primary illocutions, game ball!
- Step 8: Use background information to establish the oul' primary illocution (Searle 184), you know yerself.
With this process, Searle concludes that he has found a bleedin' method that will satisfactorily reconstruct what happens when an indirect speech act is performed. Whisht now and eist liom. Direct Speech and Indirect Speech "While direct speech purports to give a feckin' verbatim rendition of the bleedin' words that were spoken, indirect speech is more variable in claimin' to represent a faithful report of the feckin' content or content and form of the feckin' words that were spoken. Chrisht Almighty. It is important to note, however, that the bleedin' question of whether and how faithful a bleedin' given speech report actually is, is of a quite different order. Whisht now. Both direct and indirect speech are stylistic devices for conveyin' messages. Soft oul' day. The former is used as if the feckin' words bein' used were those of another, which are therefore pivoted to an oul' deictic center different from the oul' speech situation of the report. Story? Indirect speech, in contrast, has its deictic center in the report situation and is variable with respect to the extent that faithfulness to the bleedin' linguistic form of what was said isdo n= bein' claimed. C'mere til I tell ya now. " (Florian Coulmas, "Reported Speech: Some General Issues, you know yourself like. "
For much of the feckin' history of linguistics and the oul' positivist philosophy of language, language was viewed primarily as an oul' way of makin' factual assertions, and the feckin' other uses of language tended to be ignored. Soft oul' day.  The work of J. Right so. L. Story? Austin, particularly his How to Do Things with Words, led philosophers to pay more attention to the oul' non-declarative uses of language. The terminology he introduced, especially the notions "locutionary act", "illocutionary act", and "perlocutionary act", occupied an important role in what was then to become the oul' "study of speech acts". Bejaysus this is a quare tale altogether. , to be sure. All of these three acts, but especially the oul' "illocutionary act", are nowadays commonly classified as "speech acts". Arra' would ye listen to this.
Austin was by no means the oul' first one to deal with what one could call "speech acts" in a feckin' wider sense. Earlier treatments may be found in history of religion and belief in magic power of spells, also later in monotheistic religions, such as in the oul' works of some church fathers, followin' much cited New Testament ideas like Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργής "For the bleedin' word of God is livin' and powerful. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. " (Hebrews 4:12) in turn based on much cited Old Testament ideas like כן יהיה דברי אשר יצא מפי לא־ישוב אלי ריקם כי אם־עשה את־אשר חפצתי והצליח אשר שלחתיו׃ "The word sent from my mouth will not return empty, it will accomplish what I desired." (Isaiah 55:11), begorrah.
Indeed, the bleedin' very first chapter of the oul' Bible (Genesis 1) has God creatin' the feckin' world by a feckin' series of speech acts: "Let there be light!"
This idea the oul' Fathers saw echoed in the bleedin' first words of the bleedin' Gospel of John, applied by him to Jesus: "In the oul' beginnin' was the feckin' Word, would ye believe it? " and scholastic philosophers, in the bleedin' context of sacramental theology, Austin's own example of an oul' weddin' ceremony (also in Language, Truth and Logic) is an example of sacramental theology in the feckin' Roman Catholic tradition. Chrisht Almighty.
Protestants rejected marriage as an oul' sacrament, and viewed ministers as witnesses not executors of the oul' weddin' of the bleedin' couple, bindin' themselves to one another via the oul' speech acts of their vows. Here's a quare one for ye. 
The term 'social act' and some of the feckin' theory of this sui generis type of linguistic action are to be found in the oul' fifth of Thomas Reid's Essays on the oul' Active Powers of the Human Mind (1788, chapter VI, Of the oul' Nature of a Contract), you know yerself. "A man may see, and hear, and remember, and judge, and reason; he may deliberate and form purposes, and execute them, without the oul' intervention of any other intelligent bein'. They are solitary acts, game ball! But when he asks a feckin' question for information, when he testifies a feckin' fact, when he gives an oul' command to his servant, when he makes a holy promise, or enters into a bleedin' contract, these are social acts of mind, and can have no existence without the intervention of some other intelligent bein', who acts a bleedin' part in them. Between the oul' operations of the oul' mind, which, for want of a bleedin' more proper name, I have called solitary, and those I have called social, there is this very remarkable distinction, that, in the solitary, the feckin' expression of them by words, or any other sensible sign, is accidental. They may exist, and be complete, without bein' expressed, without bein' known to any other person, you know yourself like. But, in the feckin' social operations, the bleedin' expression is essential. They cannot exist without bein' expressed by words or signs, and known to the bleedin' other party."
Adolf Reinach (1883–1917) and Stanislav Škrabec (1844-1918), have been both independently credited with a fairly comprehensive account of social acts as performative utterances datin' to 1913, long before Austin and Searle. Jasus. 
The term metalocutionary act has also been used to indicate an oul' speech act that refers to the forms and functions of the discourse itself rather than continuin' the bleedin' substantive development of the oul' discourse, or to the oul' configurational functions of prosody and punctuation, fair play. 
In language development 
Dore (1975) proposed that children's utterances were realizations of one of nine primitive speech acts:
- requestin' (action)
- requestin' (answer)
In computer science 
Another highly-influential view of Speech Acts has been in the oul' 'Conversation for Action' developed by Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores in their 1987 text "Understandin' Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design". Here's another quare one for ye. Arguably the oul' most important part of their analysis lies in a feckin' state-transition diagram (in Chapter 5) that Winograd and Flores claim underlies the feckin' significant illocutionary (speech act) claims of two parties attemptin' to coordinate action with one another (no matter whether the feckin' agents involved might be human-human, human-computer, or computer-computer), so it is.
A key part of this analysis is the bleedin' contention that one dimension of the bleedin' social domain- trackin' the illocutionary status of the feckin' transaction (whether individual participants claim that their interests have been met, or not) is very readily conferred to a computer process- independent of whether the computer has the bleedin' means to adequately represent the bleedin' real world issues underlyin' that claim, for the craic. Thus an oul' computer instantiatin' the oul' 'conversation for action' has the feckin' useful ability to model the feckin' status of the bleedin' current social reality independent of any external reality on which social claims may be based.
This transactional view of speech acts has significant applications in many areas in which (human) individuals have had different roles- for instance- an oul' patient and a holy physician might meet in an encounter in which the feckin' patient makes an oul' request for treatment, the feckin' physician responds with a counter-offer involvin' a holy treatment she feels is appropriate, and the oul' patient might respond, etc. Such a "Conversation for Action" can describe a situation in which an external observer (such as a bleedin' computer or health information system) may be able to track the ILLOCUTIONARY (or Speech Act) STATUS of negotiations between the patient and physician participants even in the absence of any adequate model of the bleedin' illness or proposed treatments. The key insight provided by Winograd and Flores is that the state-transition diagram representin' the SOCIAL (Illocutionary) negotiation of the feckin' two parties involved is generally much, much simpler than any model representin' the oul' world in which those parties are makin' claims- in short- the feckin' system trackin' the bleedin' status of the 'conversation for action' need not be concerned with modelin' all of the realities of the feckin' external world- a bleedin' conversation for action is critically dependent upon certain stereotypical CLAIMS about the status of the feckin' world made by the bleedin' two parties. I hope yiz are all ears now. Thus an oul' "Conversation for Action" can be readily tracked and facilitated by a device with little or no ability to model circumstances in the feckin' real world other than the oul' ability to register claims by specific agents about an oul' domain.
Uses in technology 
In makin' useful applications of technology to domains such as healthcare, it is helpful to discriminate between problems which are very, very hard (such as deep understandin' of pathophysiology as it relates to genetic and various environmental influences) and problem which are relatively easier, such as followin' the oul' status of negotiations between an oul' patient and an oul' health care provider. Speech Act (Illocutionary) Analysis allows for an oul' useful understandin' of the feckin' status of a negotiation between (for instance) a feckin' health care provider and a bleedin' patient INDEPENDENT of any well-accepted credible and comprehensive understandin' of a holy disease process as it might apply to that patient, you know yourself like. For this reason, systems which track the feckin' status of PROMISES and REJECTED-PROPOSALS and ACCEPTED-PROMISES can help us to understand the bleedin' situations in which (human or computer) AGENTS find themselves as they attempt to fulfill ROLES involvin' other agents, and such systems can facilitate both human and human-computer systems in achievin' role-associated goals, the hoor.
In multiagent universes 
Multi-agent systems sometimes use speech act labels to express the feckin' intent of an agent when it sends a feckin' message to another agent. Bejaysus this is a quare tale altogether. , to be sure. For example the feckin' intent "inform" in the message "inform(content)" may be interpreted as a holy request that the oul' receivin' agent adds the feckin' item "content" to its knowledge-base; this is in contrast to the oul' message "query(content)" which may be interpreted (dependin' on the feckin' semantics employed) as a holy request to see if the oul' item content is currently in the receivin' agents knowledge base. In fairness now. There are at least two standardisations of speech act labelled messagin' KQML and FIPA, be the hokey!
Other uses in technology 
- SAMPO means Speech-Act-based office Modelin' approach. Here's another quare one. 
- Speech act profilin' has been used to detect deception in synchronous computer-mediated communication. C'mere til I tell ya now. 
- Searle, John R. G'wan now. (1975), “A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts”, in: Günderson, K, bejaysus. (ed, grand so. ), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, (Minneapolis Studies in the oul' Philosophy of Science, vol. Jesus, Mary and holy Saint Joseph. 7), University of Minneapolis Press, p, the shitehawk. 344-69, so it is.
- Joseph Hillis Miller Speech acts in literature for Marcel Proust's allusions to divine speech acts throughout the feckin' Bible.
- See Smith, B. "Towards a feckin' History of Speech Act Theory", at pp. Here's a quare one for ye. 29-61 in Speech Acts, Meanin', and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Bejaysus here's a quare one right here now. Searle, W. de Gruyter, (Berlin), 1990.
- Mulligan, K. C'mere til I tell ya now. Promisings and other social acts - their constituents and structure. in Mulligan, K., editor Speech Act and Sachverhalt: Reinach and the oul' Foundations of Realist Phenomenology. I hope yiz are all ears now. Nijhoff, Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster 1987. Jesus Mother of Chrisht almighty. Quote from Reid 1969, 437-438)
- Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith "Elements of Speech Act Theory in the oul' Work of Thomas Reid" in History of Philosophy Quarterly, 7 (1990), 47–66, so it is.
- Jarrett Brock “An Introduction to Peirce’s Theory of Speech Acts” in Transactions of the bleedin' Charles S. Here's another quare one for ye. Peirce Society, 17 (1981), 319-326. G'wan now.
- "Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften”, Kant-Studien 38 (1933), 43, where he discusses a feckin' Theorie der Sprechhandlungen
- Sprachtheorie (Jena: Fischer, 1934) where he uses "Sprechhandlung" and "Theorie der Sprechakte"
- http://ieeexplore. Be the hokey here's a quare wan. ieee. Here's a quare one. org/Xplore/login, enda story. jsp?url=/iel2/549/4024/00154675.pdf?isnumber=4024&prod=CNF&arnumber=154675&arSt=263&ared=264&arAuthor=Morelli%2C+R.A. Listen up now to this fierce wan. %3B+Bronzino%2C+J. G'wan now and listen to this wan. D. Be the hokey here's a quare wan. %3B+Goethe%2C+J.W. Bejaysus.
- Usin' Speech Act Theory to Model Conversations for Automated Classification and Retrieval
- A speech-act-based office modelin' approach
- Detectin' deception in synchronous computer-mediated communication usin' speech act profilin'
See also 
- Cooperative principle
- Direction of fit
- Entailment (pragmatics)
- Politeness theory
- John Langshaw Austin: How to Do Things With Words. Would ye believe this shite? Cambridge (Mass. Sufferin' Jaysus. ) 1962 - Paperback: Harvard University Press, 2nd edition, 2005, ISBN 0-674-41152-8.
- William P. C'mere til I tell yiz. Alston: 'Illocutionary Acts and Sentence Meanin''. Sufferin' Jaysus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press 2000, ISBN 0-8014-3669-9.
- Doerge, Friedrich Christoph, game ball! Illocutionary Acts - Austin's Account and What Searle Made Out of It, be the hokey! . Tuebingen 2006. Listen up now to this fierce wan.
- Dorschel, Andreas, 'What is it to understand a feckin' directive speech act?', in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy LXVII (1989), nr. 3, pp. C'mere til I tell ya now. 319–340. Be the hokey here's a quare wan.
- John Searle, Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press 1969, ISBN 0-521-09626-X, the cute hoor. . Story?
- John Searle, "Indirect speech acts." In Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts, ed, would ye believe it? P. Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Cole & J. Here's a quare one. L, fair play. Morgan, pp. Stop the lights! 59–82. Sufferin' Jaysus. New York: Academic Press. Here's another quare one. (1975). Reprinted in Pragmatics: A Reader, ed. S. Davis, pp. 265–277. Listen up now to this fierce wan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chrisht Almighty. (1991)
- Geo Siegwart, "Alethic Acts and Alethiological Reflection. An Outline of Constructive Philosophy of Truth. Arra' would ye listen to this. " In Truth and Speech Acts: Studies in the feckin' philosophy of language, ed, game ball! D, that's fierce now what? Greimann & G, you know yerself. Siegwart, pp. Whisht now. 41–58. New York: Routledge. (2007)
- Winograd, T. & Flores, F., Understandin' Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design, Ablex Publishin' Corp, (Norwood), 1986. G'wan now and listen to this wan. ISBN 0-89391-050-3. In fairness now.
- Birgit Erler: The speech act of forbiddin' and its realizations: A linguistic analysis. Chrisht Almighty. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, 2010, ISBN 978-3-639-23275-2.
- Robert Maximilian de Gaynesford: Illocutionary acts, Subordination, and Silencin' in Analysis, July 2009. Bejaysus this is a quare tale altogether. , to be sure.
- Outi, Malmivuori; Zu Stand und Entwicklung der Sprechakttheorie. Zu Grundsätzen der Theorie des spachlichen Handelns. I hope yiz are all ears now. AkademikerVerlag. 2012. Sufferin' Jaysus. ISBN 978-3-639-44043-0
- Speech Acts entry from Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, by Kent Bach
- Barry Smith, Towards a feckin' History of Speech Act Theory
- Foundation for Intelligent Physical Agents
- Speech Acts. Stop the lights! Mitchell Green, in the feckin' Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Strategies for Learnin' Speech Acts in Japanese by Noriko Ishihara
- Moumni, Hassan (2005). Sufferin' Jaysus listen to this. Politeness in Parliamentary Discourse : A Comparative Pragmatic Study of British and Moroccan MPs’ Speech Acts at Question Time. G'wan now. Unpub. Ph. Right so. D. Thesis. Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco.