Paper Keywords: Wittgenstein's speech act, personal intention, daily language

Abstract: Later Wittgenstein put forward the famous? The meaning lies in the use? What does this proposal have to do with? Language games, lifestyle? Theory. This theory is of great significance to the study of everyday language, because it points out that language is first and foremost an act, which is intertwined with other acts and reality. Searle and Austin's speech act theory emphasizes the relationship between words and the world, however, it pays insufficient attention to the relationship between people and the world. The generation and understanding of speech acts and the organic combination of personal intentionality and social phenomena need to be carried out in the context of people and the world.

1. Historical evolution and research status of speech act theory

Speech act theory began in 1950s and 1960s, represented by Austin, Grice and Searle, and their respective theoretical studies were biased. One school regards personal intentionality as the basic concept of speech act theory, and Grice is the representative figure. Meaning is produced by individuals; Speech act determines what the speaker tries to make the receiver aware of what he has done, and meaning is the product of personal behavior meaning. According to Grice's analysis, in the process of implementing speech act, its behavior itself is not influenced by established habits, rules or social conventions. Grice's point of view does not clearly explain the relationship between meaning and agreement or established custom, that is, it does not explain how meaning is dominated by agreement or established custom. At the same time, setting the meaning of the piano with the effect one wants to achieve will blur the line between words and deeds and actions that take effect with words. Therefore, as long as the intention is combined with the agreement or rule, the deficiency of Grice's above viewpoint can be made up. The other school emphasizes the importance of social customs in the process of implementing speech acts, represented by Austin and Searle, and Searle's Speech Acts is his masterpiece. According to this view, social customs, rules and discourse context play a key role in determining the meaning of speech acts. Meaning is not only the product of personal intentionality, but also the result of social J-quality cases. But whether it is a subjectivist represented by Grice or an objectivist represented by Austin, Searle and Wittgenstein, the two different factions will have some connection or understanding, and only discuss the same phenomenon from two different sides.

Searle's earliest work was to study the theory of reference, and he discussed the problems of meaning and reference in his doctoral thesis at Oxford University. His method of studying reference belongs to the tradition of Strawson and Austin, and he thinks that reference is an intentional speech act when the speaker speaks and makes other expressions. Searle believes that the implementation of speech acts can be regarded as intentional acts according to rules in a general sense. The rule that makes speech act possible is a very special rule, which he calls constructive rule. It not only standardizes many pre-existing behavior forms, but actually creates possibilities for new behavior forms. In this way, different types of speech acts can be regarded as providing different institutional possibilities within the scope of language, and explaining the structure of speech acts is to reveal constructive rules.

Qian Guanlian pointed out: Studying speech acts means studying the meaning of words, and studying the meaning of words means looking back at people's thoughts, looking back? Existence? Be with the world. This is an explanation of the philosophical purpose of speech act theory. Language is the home of existence? Heidegger said. ? Without language, existence cannot be expressed or thought. However, western philosophy has used language as a speech act to study human existence for more than two thousand years? . Later, philosophy of language changed from studying scientific language to studying everyday language. The old normal language school does not deny the fuzziness and vagueness of daily language, but thinks that the problems in daily language need to be solved through the analysis of daily language, because daily life contains truth, and the opinions of ordinary people should be the standard of right and wrong, so there is no need to artificially design a set of precise logic that is not found in daily language? . Just as rough ground has greater friction, so it is more suitable for walking, too smooth ground is easy for people to slip. Wittgenstein said: We have to walk, so we need friction. Back to the rough ground. ? Because of the philosophy of language, we really began to pay attention to reality and really took the speech acts of realistic people as the object of investigation, thus achieving a fruitful understanding. From the moment we said the first sentence, we made it clear that we wanted universality to gain understanding and consistency, and established universality and consistency within the framework of infinite communication between interpreters, so that people could discover and re-establish the rule system according to the complexity of interaction and realize the requirements of effectiveness. The function of language is not to reflect the world, but as a tool to reflect the world. Learning a language is to know people themselves. Thus, although linguistic studies are not consciously carried out by linguists, they have finally embarked on a relatively complete route of returning to people themselves. After thousands of years of debate and exploration, philosophy and linguistics have finally come to the focus of understanding people through speech acts. This is not accidental, because language is indeed behavior.

Leikauf, a well-known cognitive linguist, and the linguistic neural theory research group of Berkeley University have studied the concept of words by using the latest computer neuron activity simulation technology, which may fundamentally shake the traditional linguistic and philosophical theories about speech acts and human cognition. According to the traditional theory, reason and language distinguish people from animals; Concepts have special functional areas in the human brain and are unique to human species; Reason is separated from perception and action. In short, what are concepts, reasoning, etc? Not physically? That is, it is not reflected in the sensory and motor functions of the human-brain system. What is the concept that Lakoff discovered? Physically? Many concepts directly utilize the sensory and motor functions of the human-brain system. What is a typical example given by Leikauf? Catch? This concept. Their research results clearly show that whether you grasp an object with your hands, watch others grasp an object, imagine? Get something? Or say it? Catch? In other words, the firing areas of neurons are the same (parallel to the motor cortex network of prefrontal lobe). In other words, a specific behavior and its perception, imagination and concept of the same behavior actually use the same cerebral cortex network. Moreover, whether it is the behavior itself or the concept of this behavior, its neural activity parameters (direction, force, etc. ) and its reasoning schema (subject-control-object) and execution schema (role, mode, state stage, etc. ) It's exactly the same. People's thinking and language do not need to be assumed to exist outside the functions of the human body and brain. What are they? Physically? Among them, that is, philosophy should be? Philosophy in human body? . Austin, the founder of speech act theory, pointed out in the article "Act as Discourse" that human speech has an action-oriented speech besides reporting truth conditions. Their main purpose is not to report the facts, but to influence people's actions in some way, which is not true or false. In this way, he firmly tied the discussion of the problem to how to see the meaning of words through speech acts, and how the speaker expresses (proxy speech is also an expression) his own meaning? This is the view of many philosophers on the study of language meaning after the philosophical turn.

Philosophers believe that words that match words with deeds can bypass the debate on philosophical ontology. Look at the following three sentences and explanations quoted by Xu Youyu: He said? Is it true that the earth moves around the sun? ; ? Help others, okay? ; ? Is this picture beautiful? . If we regard them as general statements, we may have a difficult question, that is, what is the essence of truth, goodness and beauty. If we understand them as a way for the speaker to express his approval (? The earth moves around the sun? This assertion), advocating (helping others) and appreciating (this painting is really beautiful) may not be controversial. When we point out this philosophical thinking and look at the speech act theory, we know that Austin didn't come for language, did he? Take the understanding of language as a necessary preparation to solve the basic problems of philosophy? What do they think? Only by explaining the language can we get a comprehensive explanation of the thought? They are explaining people's thoughts.