David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
As is shown in the introduction of the book, the notion "illocutionary act" is used with quite a number of essentially different meanings; consequently, it is quite unclear what an "illocutionary act" is actually supposed to be. This problem is the starting point of the thesis. An argument is stated, to the effect that the introduction and use of scholarly terms like, for instance, "illocutionary act", or "performative sentence", is not entirely arbitrary. It is argued that technical terms should not be re-defined without a reason, but in the absence of reasons to the contrary should be used in the way in which they have originally been introduced. This argument is applied to the notion "illocutionary act". John L. Austin is the one who introduced this notion. Consequently, his conception of these acts should be adopted unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Therefore the book provides a detailed analysis of Austin's account, and his original conception of these acts is reconstructed. The most popular alternative account of "illocutionary acts" is John R. Searle's. Therefore, secondly, the book provides an analysis of Searle's famous account of "illocutionary acts" - the first really detailed one available, including Searle's own work. It is shown that what Searle presents is in fact extremely sketchy, and can certainly not be viewed, as it often is, as an elaborated theory. It is further argued that the fundamental assumptions about language which Searle intends to illustrate with his account of "illocutionary acts" are mistaken, so that in general a theory following the lines Searle suggests is doomed to failure. Finally it is shown that Searle's account of "illocutionary acts", as far as it goes, is not an adequate adoption of the conception Austin introduced. Hence Searle's account is no reasonable alternative to Austin's account.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
D. Kimbrough Oller & Ulrike Griebel (2014). On Quantitative Comparative Research in Communication and Language Evolution. Biological Theory 9 (3):296-308.
Similar books and articles
Tomoyuki Yamada (2008). Logical Dynamics of Some Speech Acts That Affect Obligations and Preferences. Synthese 165 (2):295 - 315.
Friedrich Christoph Doerge (2006). Re-Definition and Alston's 'Illocutionary Acts'. Grazer Philosophische Studien 73 (1):97-111.
John R. Searle (1968). Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts. Philosophical Review 77 (4):405-424.
Maciej Witek (2010). Naturalising Illocutionary Rules. In Marcin Miłkowski & Konrad Talmont-Kaminski (eds.), Beyond Description: Naturalism and Normativity. College Publications
Klaus Petrus (2006). Illokution Und Konvention, Oder Auch: Was Steckt Nun Wirklich Hinter Austins ,,Securing of Uptake"? Grazer Philosophische Studien 70 (1):101-126.
Mark Siebel (2003). Illocutionary Acts and Attitude Expression. Linguistics and Philosophy 26 (3):351-366.
Barry Smith (2003). John Searle: From Speech Acts to Social Reality. In John Searle. Cambridge University Press 1--33.
M. Kissine (2009). Illocutionary Forces and What is Said. Mind and Language 24 (1):122-138.
Added to index2010-07-23
Total downloads37 ( #112,859 of 1,911,319 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #457,064 of 1,911,319 )
How can I increase my downloads?