Normal Circumstances, Literal Language, Direct Speech Acts, the Ordinary, the Everyday, the Obvious, What Goes without Saying, and Other Special Cases

Critical Inquiry 4 (4):625-644 (1978)

Abstract
A sentence is never not in a context. We are never not in a situation. A statute is never not read in the light on some purpose. A set of interpretative assumptions is always in force. A sentence that seems to need no interpretation is already the product of one...No sentence is ever apprehended independently of some or other illocutionary force. Illocutionary force is the key term in speech-act theory. It refers to the way an utterance is taken—as an order, a warning, a promise, a proposal, a request, etc.—and the theory's strongest assertion is that no utterance is ever taken purely, that is, without already having been understood as the performance of some illocutionary act. Consider, as an example, the sentence "I will go." Depending on the context in which it is uttered, "I will go" can be understood as a promise, a threat, a warning, a report, a prediction, etc., but it will always be understood as one of these, and it will never be an unsituated kernel of pure semantic value. In other words, "I will go" does not have a basic or primary meaning which is then put to various illocutionary uses; rather, "I will go" is known only in its illocutionary lives, and in each of them its meaning will be different. Moreover, if the meaning of a sentence is a function of its illocutionary force , and if illocutionary force varies with the circumstances, then illocutionary force is not a property of sentences, but of situations. That is, while a sentence will always have an illocutionary force , the illocutionary force it has will not always be the same. Stanley E. Fish is the author of, among many other works, Is There a Text in This Class? Interpretative Authority in the Classroom and in Literary Criticism, and The Living Temple: George Herbert and Catechizing. His contributions to Critical Inquiry include "Facts and Fictions: A Reply to Ralph Rader" , "Interpreting the Variorum" , "Interpreting 'Interpreting the Variorum'" , "A Reply to John Reichert; or, How to Stop Worrying and Learn to Love Interpretation" , and "One More Time"
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/447959
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,350
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On Some of the Aspects of the Linguistic Theory of Law.Marta Andruszkiewicz - 2016 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 46 (1):211-229.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Speech Acts.Mitchell Green - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Genocidal Language Games.Lynne Tirrell - 2012 - In Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan (eds.), Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford University Press. pp. 174--221.
Metaphor.Richard Moran - 1997 - In Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell. pp. 248-267.
Negative Acts.Stefanov Gheorghe - 2010 - Analele Universitatii Bucuresti - Filosofie (LIX):3-9.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-01-17

Total views
39 ( #234,670 of 2,291,080 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
8 ( #119,309 of 2,291,080 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature