Indirect speeches are often used to reject proposals and make requests. For example, if one speaker asks, “Would you like to see me for a coffee?” and the other says, “I have class.” The second speaker rejected the proposal with an indirect speech. This is indirect, because the literal meaning of “I have class” does not lead to any form of rejection. In political science, the Copenhagen school takes the act of language as a form of successful speech (or simply “facilitation conditions”), the speaker, often a politician or gambler, acting in accordance with the truth, but in preparation for the public to intervene in the directions of the player pushed or encouraged by the plot. This constitutes an observable framework under a certain object of the player, and the audience that “would stay outside the frame itself, and would benefit from both being taken inside and out.” [36] This is because the public would not be informed of the player`s intentions other than to focus on the presentation of the language act itself. Therefore, from the player`s point of view, the truth of the object is irrelevant, except for the result generated by the audience. [37] On the sociological level, Nicolas Brisset uses the concept of the linguistic act to understand how economic models participate in the production and dissemination of representations within and outside the scientific field. Brisset argues that models take action in different fields (scientific, academic, practical and political). This variety of fields induces a variety of felicity conditions and types of actions performed.

This perspective is a critique of the essentialism of philosophical modeling studies. [39] Under conventional contract law, the formation of a valid agreement generally involves an offer, acceptance and consideration. The first two items usually take place in a spoken or written language: a supplier offers to do something in exchange for something valuable given by a bidder. The latter can then accept the offer, refuse or make a counter-offer. What makes this particular verbal exchange so special, and how does it differ from other acts of speech that can also have legal consequences, such as the issuance of a threat, the offer of bribes, the defamation of someone or the violation? This article deals with this question from the theory of language and act, a linguistic reference approach advocated by the two linguistic philosophers John Austin (1962) and John Searle (1969).