1.2 The traditional approaches

1.2 The traditional approaches

1.2.1 The emergence of SPEECH ACT theory

Initially, within the traditional theoretical approaches, language is, broadly speaking, treated as a matter of philosophical problem. In the 1930s ,the doctrine of “logical positivism” which regards language throughout truth and falsity verifications has emerged(3).But later on ,it is challenged by Austin’s(1962) theory of SPEECH ACT(4)which combines the utterance of a specific sentence and the action that may result in (5). Controversially, this theory of illocutionary acts is very complex, since it suffers from a lot of defects ,and lacks systematic and solid criteria(6).Basically ,because the illocutionary notions indicate both similar and inter connected categories(7).
Although developed by Searl(1975) in his distinction between direct and indirect speech acts ,the theory in general ,whether effective or not, is still lacking contextual factors(8). In this regard, Grice’s conversational implications represents a gradual separation from the old traditional scope, and a new discovery in terms of novel ways of analysis (9).
But even Grice’s four folded maxims of “quality” “quantity” “relation” and “manner” are entirely handicapped within conversational analysis(10).In short ,although these theoretical views have failed to analyse language more effectively ,at least they have introduced a pragmatic background for the language analysis.


1.2.2 Pragmatic in relation to empiricism

Relatively, this association between the meaning and its use would represent the basis of pragmatics as a scientific discipline of the study of language .Pragmatics goes beyond semantics; since the meaning of an utterance is, apparently, embodied, the rest of it requires the collaboration of other contextual factors (11).
Thus, the most effective and practical way to study pragmatic phenomena is by analysing conversational structures as they are a sort or a sample of language usage (12).
In this respect, conversational analysis may be studied effectively via empirical techniques (13). This need for empirical research on the nature of what would construct language was for one reason: To account for socio-cultural and psychological features (14), and in this regard Gumperz(1986) said that:

The descriptive linguists of the 1930s or 1940s both insist on the need for more intensive and systematic empirical research into the nature of basic cognitive processes and by implication they are critical of social science measurement which neglects to show how the researcher’s categories relate to the actors perceptions of what takes place (15).

As far as language analysis is concerned, it is apparently wide open that both the traditional theories or the descriptive linguists were aware that social factors are important elements which should never be neglected .Nevertheless, they have failed to employ them .In sum, the techniques and theoretical methods suggested by the theoretical linguists are logically and practically not sufficient for conversational analysis (16).