David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
It is often assumed that Paul Grice, in one way or another, has made an important contribution to the theory of speech acts} Grice, as far as I can see, never expressly addresses Austin’s theory in his published work. He hardly ever uses the speech act terminology of "illocution", "perlocution", etc.2 So what does the more or less implicit Gricean contribution to the theory of speech acts consist in'? There is more than one good answer to this question. I shall concentrate on a particularly influential one, which goes back to Strawson (1964). It says that Austin, in his account of the nature of illocutionary acts, over-emphasized the role of conventions; that Austin went wrong in characterizing illocutionary acts as acts which are essentially conventional. The Gricean contribution to speech act theory, according to the envisaged answer, is twofold, both diagnostic and therapeutic. First, it helps us see where and why Austin went wrong in taking illocutionary acts to be essentially conventional. Second, it suggests an essentially intentional — instead of an essentially conventional- element in illocutionary acts. In his 1964 paper Strawson tried to bring out, as regards the interplay of convention and intention in illocutionary acts, both what can be conceded to Austin and what must be learnt from Grice. Austin (1962: 115) had said that "the performance of an illocutionaiy act involves the securing of uptake". Strawson (1964: 158 ff) interprets Austin as meani_ng to say that the performance of an illocutionary act involves understanding of illocutionary force. Understanding of illocutionary force involves, according to Strawson, grasping a "compleX [speaker’s] intention" (ib.: 160), and it is here, of course, where he brings Gricean ideas into _Austin’s scheme of what the essence of illocution is. He says.
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Maciej Witek (2010). Naturalising Illocutionary Rules. In Marcin Miłkowski & Konrad Talmont-Kaminski (eds.), Beyond Description: Naturalism and Normativity. College Publications.
Alexander Bird (2002). Illocutionary Silencing. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83 (1):1–15.
Glen Pettigrove (2004). The Forgiveness We Speak: The Illocutionary Force of Forgiving. Southern Journal of Philosophy 42 (3):371-392.
Tomoyuki Yamada (2008). Logical Dynamics of Some Speech Acts That Affect Obligations and Preferences. Synthese 165 (2):295 - 315.
Nicole Wyatt (2009). Failing to Do Things with Words. Southwest Philosophy Review 25 (1):135-142.
Jerrold J. Katz (1977). Propositional Structure and Illocutionary Force: A Study of the Contribution of Sentence Meaning to Speech Acts. Harvester.
Stefanov Gheorghe (2010). Negative Acts. Analele Universitatii Bucuresti - Filosofie (LIX):3-9.
M. Kissine (2009). Illocutionary Forces and What is Said. Mind and Language 24 (1):122-138.
Klaus Petrus (2006). Illokution Und Konvention, Oder Auch: Was Steckt Nun Wirklich Hinter Austins ,,Securing of Uptake"? Grazer Philosophische Studien 70 (1):101-126.
Added to index2009-09-15
Total downloads49 ( #40,593 of 1,679,397 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #183,003 of 1,679,397 )
How can I increase my downloads?