---
title: "Characterizing Indirect Speech Acts — paper by Brown (1980)"
description: "Gordon and Lakoff offer one elegant rule built on sincerity conditions for requests. 26 references, cited by 4 papers here."
authors: ["Gretchen P. Brown"]
year: 1980
venue: "Computational Linguistics"
source: "https://aclanthology.org/J80-3002/"
licence: "CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)"
licence_url: "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/"
summary_licence: "Elamur Cosmic License"
canonical: "https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brown-1980-characterizing-indirect-speech-acts/"
---
[Elamur Research](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) · [this page in HTML](https://research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brown-1980-characterizing-indirect-speech-acts/)

[home](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/) / [papers](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/) / [1980](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1980/) / Characterizing Indirect Speech Acts

# Characterizing Indirect Speech Acts

**Authors:** Gretchen P. Brown · **Year:** 1980 · **Venue:** [Computational Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/cl/) ([Computational Linguistics 1980](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/venues/cl/1980/)) · **Licence:** [CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 (ACL Anthology, before 2016)](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)

**Links:** [Publisher's page](https://aclanthology.org/J80-3002/) · [PDF](https://aclanthology.org/J80-3002.pdf) · [OpenAlex](https://openalex.org/W2136985122)

**Citations:** 17 citations (OpenAlex, 2026-10-14) · [4](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/brown-1980-characterizing-indirect-speech-acts/cited-by/) in our library, of the 149,439 papers whose bibliographies we read

## Summary
Brown tackles a long-standing gap in speech act theory: no one has fully explained which surface forms can carry a given speech act indirectly. A familiar case is a question about ability used as a request to close a door. The paper argues that earlier accounts were held back by weak semantics. Gordon and Lakoff offer one elegant rule built on sincerity conditions for requests. Searle proposes many generalizations tied to condition types. Brown combines and generalizes both by treating speech acts as actions. She represents them as "methods" from the OWL-I knowledge representation scheme. A method has a header, case-organized argument specifications (including a principal result), prerequisites and procedure steps. Indirect forms are then derived from general principles of goal formation rather than from the structure of each act alone. The result is a set of named rules covering many indirect request forms. It is offered as the core of a descriptive theory. The work matters computationally because it groups indirect speech acts (ISAs) by derivation complexity, so each group can get its own representation and processing strategy.

## Key points
- Gordon and Lakoff list four request conditions: one speaker-based and three hearer-based. Their single rule says a request can be conveyed by asserting the speaker-based condition or questioning a hearer-based one.
- Searle gives four generalizations for directives and five for commissives. They are keyed to propositional content, sincerity and preparatory conditions. Brown criticizes them as too specific and says they leave the speaker/hearer distinction informal.
- The paper distinguishes preconditions from prerequisites:
  - Preconditions are constraints on the agent's beliefs or desires; if one fails, the plan is discarded.
  - Prerequisites are states; if one fails, extra steps are added to bring the state about.
- Rules are named and applied per condition. Examples include UNMARKED-ASK, UNMARKED-ASSERT, P2-ASK, COMPOSITE-REQUEST and COMPOSITE-ASK, illustrated on variants of "join the Marines".
- The theory grew out of an implemented dialogue system that performed internal manipulations on a twenty-turn sample dialogue.

## Interesting ideas
- Model each speech act as an ordinary action schema with cases, a principal result, preconditions and prerequisites, so that one general machinery for actions also covers talk.
- Separate failure modes: a broken precondition rules out an interpretation, while a missing prerequisite only adds steps. This yields two clear and different responses to an unmet condition.
- Mark each action with a principal result, the reason it is done, as distinct from side effects (the block becomes red, not the brush).
- Classify indirect forms by how complex their derivation is, and give each class its own processing strategy instead of forcing one uniform treatment.
- Generate candidate indirect phrasings by applying named rules to each condition of an act (assert it, question it, combine conditions).

## For Mova

How these ideas could serve Mova, our small open language model — its files, stages and tests:

- **I1** (frames): crate prag could store each speech act as a frame with precondition slots, then recognize an indirect request when a question targets one of those slots.
- **I2** (world): the world model could treat unmet prerequisites as implied future events, and unmet preconditions as grounds for rejecting a reading, logging which one applied.
- **I3** (world): event representations could carry a principal-result state, helping QA on fables answer "why did X do Y" without confusing it with incidental outcomes.
- **I4** (frames): prag could handle conventionalized forms like "Can you…" with cheap direct rules and send freer forms to a slower, explainable goal-reasoning path.
- **I5** (back): the generator could produce polite or indirect variants of a request from the request frame's conditions, and record which rule produced each.

*Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.*

📚 Shelves (4): [🖥️ Computer Science](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/) · 18,614 works · [🤖 Artificial Intelligence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/computer-science/artificial-intelligence/) · 17,965 works · [🎭 Arts and Humanities](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/) · 17,450 works · [🗣️ Language and Linguistics](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/shelves/arts-and-humanities/language-and-linguistics/) · 17,296 works

🧭 Topics (1): [💬 Speech act theory](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/topics/speech-act-theory/) · 229 works

## Cite

Cite as: Gretchen P. Brown. 1980. Characterizing Indirect Speech Acts. Computational Linguistics.

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work.

```bibtex
@misc{brown1980characterizing,
  title = {{Characterizing Indirect Speech Acts}},
  author = {Gretchen P. Brown},
  year = {1980},
  url = {https://aclanthology.org/J80-3002/}
}
```

- [← previous A Plan-Based Analysis of Indirect Speech Act](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/perrault-1980-plan-based-analysis-indirect-speech/)
- [next → An Analysis of the Standard English Keyboard](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/hiraga-1980-analysis-standard-english-keyboard/)
- [↑ back to papers of 1980](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/1980/)

## References

26 references, 1 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

1. Allen, J. "A Plan-Based Approach to Speech Act Recognition," Technical Report No. 131/79 (February 1979), Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Allen%2C+J%2E+%22A+Plan%2DBased+Approach+to+Speech+Act+Recognition%2C%22+Technical+Report+No%2E+131%2F79+%28February+1979%29%2C+Department+of+Computer+Science%2C+University+of+Toronto%2C+Toronto%2C+Canada%2E)
2. Austin, J.L. How to Do Things with Words, Oxford University Press, New York, 1962. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Austin%2C+J%2EL%2E+How+to+Do+Things+with+Words%2C+Oxford+University+Press%2C+New+York%2C+1962%2E)
3. Brown, G.P. "A Framework for Processing Dialogue," LCS TR-182 (June 1977), Laboratory for Computer Science, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brown%2C+G%2EP%2E+%22A+Framework+for+Processing+Dialogue%2C%22+LCS+TR%2D182+%28June+1977%29%2C+Laboratory+for+Computer+Science%2C+M%2EI%2ET%2E%2C+Cambridge%2C+MA%2E)
4. Brown, G.P. "Toward a Computational Theory of Indirect Speech Acts," LCS TR-223 (September 1979), Laboratory for Computer Science, M.I.T. Cambridge, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brown%2C+G%2EP%2E+%22Toward+a+Computational+Theory+of+Indirect+Speech+Acts%2C%22+LCS+TR%2D223+%28September+1979%29%2C+Laboratory+for+Computer+Science%2C+M%2EI%2ET%2E+Cambridge%2C+MA%2E)
5. Brown, G.P. "Action Descriptions in Indirect Speech Acts," Cognition and Brain Theory, Vol. 3, No. 3, Spring 1980. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Brown%2C+G%2EP%2E+%22Action+Descriptions+in+Indirect+Speech+Acts%2C%22+Cognition+and+Brain+Theory%2C+Vol%2E+3%2C+No%2E+3%2C+Spring+1980%2E)
6. Bruce, B.C. "Belief Systems and Language Understanding," BBN Report No. 2973 (January 1975), Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21236/ada012533)
7. Cohen, P.R. "On Knowing What to Say: Planning Speech Acts," Technical Report No. 118 (January 1978), Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Cohen%2C+P%2ER%2E+%22On+Knowing+What+to+Say%3A+Planning+Speech+Acts%2C%22+Technical+Report+No%2E+118+%28January+1978%29%2C+Department+of+Computer+Science%2C+University+of+Toronto%2C+Toronto%2C+Canada%2E)
8. Davison A. "Indirect Speech Acts and What to Do With Them," in: Cole and Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, 1975. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_007)
9. Ervin-Tripp, S. "Wait for Me, Roller Skate," in: Ervin-Tripp and Mitchell-Kernan (eds.) Child Discourse, Academic Press, New York, 1977. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Ervin%2DTripp%2C+S%2E+%22Wait+for+Me%2C+Roller+Skate%2C%22+in%3A+Ervin%2DTripp+and+Mitchell%2DKernan+%28eds%2E%29+Child+Discourse%2C+Academic+Press%2C+New+York%2C+1977%2E)
10. Fraser, B. "Hedged Performatives," in: Cole and Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, 1975. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Fraser%2C+B%2E+%22Hedged+Performatives%2C%22+in%3A+Cole+and+Morgan+%28eds%2E%29+Syntax+and+Semantics%2C+vol%2E+3%2C+Academic+Press%2C+New+York%2C+1975%2E)
11. Gordon, D. and Lakoff, G. "Conversational Postulates," in: Cole and Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, 1975. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Gordon%2C+D%2E+and+Lakoff%2C+G%2E+%22Conversational+Postulates%2C%22+in%3A+Cole+and+Morgan+%28eds%2E%29+Syntax+and+Semantics%2C+vol%2E+3%2C+Academic+Press%2C+New+York%2C+1975%2E)
12. Grice, H.P. "Logic and Conversation," in: Cole and Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, 1975. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003)
13. Grosz, B. "The Representation and Use of Focus in a System for Understanding Dialogs," Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, Mass. (August 1977). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Grosz%2C+B%2E+%22The+Representation+and+Use+of+Focus+in+a+System+for+Understanding+Dialogs%2C%22+Proceedings+of+the+Fifth+International+Joint+Conference+on+Artificial+Intelligence%2C+Cambridge%2C+Mass%2E+%28August+1977)
14. Hawkinson, L. "The Representation of Concepts in OWL," Advance Papers of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Tbilisi, Georgia, USSR (September 1975). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Hawkinson%2C+L%2E+%22The+Representation+of+Concepts+in+OWL%2C%22+Advance+Papers+of+the+Fourth+International+Joint+Conference+on+Artificial+Intelligence%2C+Tbilisi%2C+Georgia%2C+USSR+%28September+1975%29%2E)
15. Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. Therapeutic Discourse, Academic Press, New York, 1977. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Labov%2C+W%2E+and+Fanshel%2C+D%2E+Therapeutic+Discourse%2C+Academic+Press%2C+New+York%2C+1977%2E)
16. Levin, J.A. and Moore, J.A. "Dialogue Games: Meta-communication Structures for Natural Language Interaction," Cognitive Science, Vol. 1, No. 4, October 1977. [↗](https://doi.org/10.21236/ada037110)
17. Moore, J.A., Levin, J . A , and Mann, W.C. "A Goal-Oriented Model of Human Dialogue," American Journal of Computational Linguistics, Microfiche 67 (1977). [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Moore%2C+J%2EA%2E%2C+Levin%2C+J+%2E+A+%2C+and+Mann%2C+W%2EC%2E+%22A+Goal%2DOriented+Model+of+Human+Dialogue%2C%22+American+Journal+of+Computational+Linguistics%2C+Microfiche+67+%281977%29%2E)
18. Morgan, J.L. "Two Types of Convention in Indirect Speech Acts," in: Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, 1978. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368873_010)
19. Perrault, C.R., Allen, J.F., and Cohen P.R. "[Speech Acts as a Basis for Understanding Dialogue Coherence](https://md.research.elamur.ai/free/en/papers/perrault-1978-speech-acts-as-basis-understanding/)," Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing-2, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (July 1978).
20. Sadock, J.M. Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, 1974. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sadock%2C+J%2EM%2E+Toward+a+Linguistic+Theory+of+Speech+Acts%2C+Academic+Press%2C+New+York%2C+1974%2E)
21. Schank, R. and Abelson, R. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ 1977. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Schank%2C+R%2E+and+Abelson%2C+R%2E+Scripts%2C+Plans%2C+Goals%2C+and+Understanding%2C+Lawrence+Erlbaum+Associates%2C+Hillsdale%2C+NJ+1977%2E)
22. Searle, J.R. Speech Acts, University Press, Cambridge, 1969. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Searle%2C+J%2ER%2E+Speech+Acts%2C+University+Press%2C+Cambridge%2C+1969%2E)
23. Searle, J.R. "Indirect Speech Acts," in: Cole and Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, 1975. [↗](https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_004)
24. Searle, J.R. "A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts," in: Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind, and Knowledge, University of Min-• nesota Press, 1976. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Searle%2C+J%2ER%2E+%22A+Taxonomy+of+Illocutionary+Acts%2C%22+in%3A+Gunderson+%28ed%2E%29%2C+Language%2C+Mind%2C+and+Knowledge%2C+University+of+Min%2D%E2%80%A2+nesota+Press%2C+1976%2E)
25. Szolovits, P., Hawkinson, L., and Martin, W.A. "An Overview of OWL, a Language for Knowledge Representation," Proceedings of the Workshop on Natural Language for Interaction with Data Bases, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; also available as LCS-TM-86, (June 1977), Laboratory for Computer Science, M.I.T., Cambridge, MA. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Szolovits%2C+P%2E%2C+Hawkinson%2C+L%2E%2C+and+Martin%2C+W%2EA%2E+%22An+Overview+of+OWL%2C+a+Language+for+Knowledge+Representation%2C%22+Proceedings+of+the+Workshop+on+Natural+Language+for+Interaction+with+Data+Bases%2C+Internati)
26. Verschueren, J. "The Analysis of Speech Act Verbs: Theoretical Preliminaries," (August 1977) Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, IN. Gretchen P. B r o w n is a C o m p u t e r Scientist in the Sponsored Research Division of the Computer Corporation of America. She received the Electrical Engineer degree in computer science from the Massachusetts Institute o f Technology in 1974. [find](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Verschueren%2C+J%2E+%22The+Analysis+of+Speech+Act+Verbs%3A+Theoretical+Preliminaries%2C%22+%28August+1977%29+Indiana+University+Linguistics+Club%2C+Bloomington%2C+IN%2E+Gretchen+P%2E+B+r+o+w+n+is+a+C+o+m+p+u+t+e+r+Scientist+)

*Updated 1 November 2026*