I find taxonomy useful, but I think Derrida is right that Searle was more preoccupied making SAT (and language in general) into a mathematical formula than the "art" of language. I think the only really crucial elements are:
- locutions
- illocution (act/force and [or vs] intent)
- perlocution (act/force and [or vs] intent)
I find very little use teaching or using the 5 categories of Searle for interpretation of verbal or written speech acts.
I find studying a locution from illocutionary intent or perlocutionary intent more useful than Assertive, Directive, etc.
Hope it made sense and it was a useful answer! I still find it a fascinating field that is under-utilized because people try to make it into a programming language (a la Searle) instead of a way to understand semantics and semantic intent.
Thank you for your insights, this has been useful! (I was actually hoping to ask this to a linguist for some time now, so I was happy when I saw your message!)
You surmised my current situation well, I've been focusing a lot on the 5 categories and little on the locutions. I shall remedy that :)
One thing in your answer that I'm a bit fuzzy on is what you meant by the confusing thing in the brackets (act/force and [or vs] intent)?
