Consider the following scenario: an impatient man is sitting in a restaurant, and asked the waiter 'Where is my dinner?'.
My understanding is this:
- Asking for the location of the man's dinner is the locutionary act (or utterance in Searle's terminology)
- Demanding (the waiter to hasten the chef to cook his dinner) is the illocutionary act
- The waiter quickly bringing the man's dinner around is the perlocutionary act/the effect of the illocutionary act
- 'my dinner' and 'where' would be the reference and predicate respectively, collectively the propositional acts in Searle's terminology
But then what would the speech act in this case be? Because my (likely mistaken) impression is that the speech act is also the demand, i.e. it is the illocutionary act.
But then that doesn't make sense to me because why do we need another name for the illocutionary act? My confusion is worsen by the following sentence in Wikipedia's Speech Act page:
According to Searle, a "speech act" is often meant to refer to exactly the same thing as the term illocutionary act.
So speech act IS illocutionary act? But then again why are there two names for the same concept? It would have made more sense if the four components I mentioned above, collectively, come to form a speech act. But equating illocutionary act to speech at is confusing as hell.