語言具有強大的力量，如果善加運用可幫助使用者達到若干目的。語言的此種特性首先由英國語言哲學家奧斯汀（J. L. Austin）提出並將其發展為言語行為理論（speech act theory）。奧斯汀認為語言是行事性的（performative），他將話語分為使用言辭（locution）、發話行為（illocution）及語導行為（perlocution）三種要素以進一步研究語言的力量。然而奧斯汀未曾於理論中提及言前行為（prelocution）的概念，言前行為可視為言語行為的動機，加入言前行為可以釐清言語行為理論的概念和建立更完整的理論架構。本論文冀望運用言語行為理論中的三種要素—言前行為（動機）、發話行為（意圖）和語導行為（後果）—來分析莎士比亞《馬克白》中的言語行為。在分析與馬克白相關的言語行為過程中，不難發現並驗證這樣的事實：語言影響了馬克白的行為以及激發他運用語言的企圖與實踐；因為言語行為，最後終使他邁向悲劇性的滅亡。

Language has its tremendous power and can be used to achieve the user’s purpose. This characteristic of language is first addressed by J. L. Austin, a British philosopher of language, and is then developed into speech act theory. He argues that language is performative and divides an utterance into three elements—locution, illocution, and perlocution—to do further research on language. However, in his theory, Austin does not mention prelocution, an element which can be seen as a motive of an action. Prelocution is worth analyzing for it can reinforce the concept and structure of speech act theory. This thesis attempts to apply these elements of speech act theory—prelocution, illocution, and perlocution, each of which represents motive, intention, and consequence—to analyze the speech acts in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. By analyzing the speech acts related to and performed by Macbeth, I want to illustrate that language plays an important role in affecting Macbeth’s action and eventually leading the protagonist to his doom.

Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Chinese Abstract iii
Introduction 1
Chapter One: From Speech Act Theory to Analysis of Literary Texts 3
1.1 Introduction to speech act theory 3
1.1.1 Foundation of the theory: J. L. Austin’s lectures 3
1.1.2 Development of Austin’s theory: John R. Searle’s philosophy of language 7
1.1.3 Criticism of Austin’s theory: Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive reading 10
1.2 Speech acts in literature: J. Hillis Miller’s illustration of literature 13
1.3 Another aspect of a speech act: the existence and function of prelocution 15
Chapter Two: Macbeth as the Receiver 19
2.1. The prophecies of the witches 19
2.2. The dialogues between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth before the assassination 22
2.3. Macbeth’s monologue before the assassination 24
2.4. The prophecies of the apparitions 26
Chapter Three: Macbeth as the Deliverer 29
3.1. The dialogues between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth after the assassination 29
3.2. The dialogues between Macbeth and other nobles after Duncan’s death 31
3.3. The dialogues between Macbeth and the murderers 33
3.4. The dialogues between Macbeth and Macduff 36
Conclusion 39
Works Cited 41

Austin, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed., Harvard UP, 1975.
Bate, Jonathan, and Eric Rasmussen, editors. William Shakespeare: Complete Works. Macmillan, 2007.
Bloom, Harold. William Shakespeare’s Macbeth. Chelsea House, 1996.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1999.
Cahn, Victor L. Introducing Shakespeare’s Tragedies: A Guide for Teachers. Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.
Derrida, Jacques. Limited Inc. Translated by Samuel Weber and Jeffrey Mehlman, edited by Gerald Graff, Northwestern UP, 1988.
“equivocation.” Oxford Dictionary of English. 3rd ed., Oxford UP, 2010.
Fish, Stanley E. “How to do Things with Austin and Searle: Speech Act Theory and Literary Criticism.” MLN, vol. 91, no. 5, 1976, pp. 983-1025.
Harnish, Robert M. “Speech Acts and Intentionality.” Speech Acts, Meaning, and Intentions: Critical Approaches to the Philosophy of John R. Searle, edited by Armin Burkhardt, Walter De Gruyter, 1990, pp. 169-93.
Merton, Robert K. “The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.” The Antioch Review, vol. 8, no. 2, 1948, pp. 193-210.
Miller, J. Hillis. On Literature. Routledge, 2002.
Montagu, Elizabeth. “The Tragedy of Macbeth.” An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare, Compared with the Greek and French Dramatic Poets: With Some Remarks upon the Misrepresentations of Mons. de Voltaire, 6th ed., Harding and Wright, 1810, pp. 155-84.
“motivation.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford UP, 2001.
“motive.” The New Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford UP, 2001.
“parasite.” Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Rev. ed., Oxford UP, 2000.
Petrey, Sandy. Speech Acts and Literary Theory. Routledge, 1990.
“rhetorical question.” The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford UP, 2001.
Searle, John R. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge UP, 1979.
---. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge UP, 1983.
---. Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World. Basic Books, 1998.
---. “Reiterating the Difference: A Reply to Derrida.” Glyph, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 198-208.
---. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge UP, 1969.
---. The Rediscovery of the Mind. MIT, 1992.
Searle, John R., and Daniel Vanderveken. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge UP, 1985.
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark. Edited by Philip Edwards, Cambridge UP, 1985.
---. Macbeth. Edited by Robert S. Miola, Norton Critical Edition, W. W. Norton, 2004.
Zhang, Jie-gen. “Conceptualization of Prelocution.” Journal of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics (Social Sciences), vol. 17, no. 3, 2015, pp. 79-83.
---. “The Explanatory Power and Implementing Principles of Prelocutionary Acts.” Journal of Jinling Institute of Technology (Social Science), vol. 27, no. 1, 2013, pp. 71-74.