A Comparative Analysis of Different Approaches to the Classification of Speech Acts

This paper presents a comparative analysis of major theoretical approaches to the classification of speech acts, focusing on the foundational model proposed by J.L. Austin (1962) and the more systematic framework developed by J.R. Searle (1969). The study adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology based on a critical review of key works in Speech Act Theory. The analysis examines the principles and categories underlying both taxonomies and demonstrates that, although Austin’s contribution was pioneering, his verb-based classification suffers from conceptual overlap and a lack of unified criteria. In contrast, Searle’s five-part taxonomy – Representatives, Directives, Commissives, Expressives, and Declarations – offers a more coherent and theoretically grounded model, relying on clearly defined notions such as illocutionary point and direction of fit. The discussion highlights the analytical advantages of Searle’s framework and considers its relevance for discourse analysis, artificial intelligence, and cross-cultural communication. The paper concludes that Searle’s taxonomy remains the most influential and pragmatically effective framework for analyzing the functional dimensions of language use.