Speech Act Theory and a new revolution in linguistics are opening unexplored ground in how we understand human language. Some younger biblical scholars like Dr. Lace Williams-Tinajero, are already stating to use these insights and they are coming to grips with what it means for theology. For centuries, the central question of biblical interpretation or any literary interpretation has been what do the words mean. Any statement or writing came under the microscope of what does it mean and is it true. Scholars, believers, and skeptics based their interpretations on what did the writers meant by their words. They argued endlessly like boys at the playground about whose interpretation was bigger and better. It would grind dialog to halt into the nan, nan, na nan na chant of right and wrong. We are at the cusp of a new revolution of understanding with Speech Act Theory and the other linguistics methodologies shedding new light on human language. The implications of this new revolution will cause an earthquake of understanding of interpretation for years to come.
Speech Act Theory has its foundation in a series of lectures by J L Austin at the William James lecture series given at Harvard in 1955, which later was gathered in a book, How to Do Things Words. His central question was what do speaker do with language. By switching the question of language from meaning to action, he was able to open a new ways of seeing the spoken and the written words. That a speaker and writer have an intention when they use words, may seem self evident, but like any new powerful insight, it has the power to shake the foundation of Biblical Interpretation for years to come. For biblical understanding, we can see the power by asking what the writer was doing with his words rather than what his words mean. Take the beginning of the Gospel of John; the hymn that begins the Gospel is what Speech Act Theory calls an expressive. The writer sets the tone by expressing his beliefs about the nature of the world. John wanted to express how he saw the world and not create something new. Contrast that with the United States Constitution, which is what Speech Act Theory calls a declarative. The framers of the constitution wanted to create a new entity, the United States Government. The difference becomes apparent in that the Gospel writer was not out to create or help create a new religion, but express how the world how changed for him. The framers knew they were creating something new and wanted to shape it.
Speech Act Theory went on to look at they way speaker use language shapes its function and look at the different uses for language. Speech Act Theory divided the actions of words in several categories and saw a limited number of actions a speaker or writer could do with words, such as promise, declare, express and a few others. Austin’s famous example of saying, “I do” in the right setting changes our status from unmarried to married. “Do you take this woman to be your wedded wife?” “I do.” In other circumstances, we can say, “I do” and nothing much changes in world. “Do you like Chocolate?” “I do.” In both cases, the words mean the same thing, but the action of the speaker is different. One declares an ontological change from a bachelor to a husband. The second express a preference for chocolate. Their were several theorists took up Austin’s insights and further developed Speech Act Theory including Paul Recour, John Searle, and many others. Speech Act Theory, as to be expected, was first taken up by the law profession. What people are doing and intending to do with their language is important in a courtroom, legal documents and legal disputes. How we understand the written work that is the Bible has also fall under this new understanding. It will have power to shape how to understand what the writers are trying to do with their words and how we understand theology in the coming years.
Tags: human language, interpretation, john searle, language, linguistic, linguistics, scholar, scholars, searle, speech act, speech act theory, theory, writing