Featured Linguist!

Jost Gippert: Our Featured Linguist!

"Buenos dias", "buenas noches" -- this was the first words in a foreign language I heard in my life, as a three-year old boy growing up in developing post-war Western Germany, where the first gastarbeiters had arrived from Spain. Fascinated by the strange sounds, I tried to get to know some more languages, the only opportunity being TV courses of English and French -- there was no foreign language education for pre-teen school children in Germany yet in those days. Read more

Donate Now | Visit the Fund Drive Homepage

Amount Raised:


Still Needed:


Can anyone overtake Syntax in the Subfield Challenge ?

Grad School Challenge Leader: University of Washington

Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login
amazon logo
More Info

New from Oxford University Press!


What is English? And Why Should We Care?

By: Tim William Machan

To find some answers Tim Machan explores the language's present and past, and looks ahead to its futures among the one and a half billion people who speak it. His search is fascinating and important, for definitions of English have influenced education and law in many countries and helped shape the identities of those who live in them.

New from Cambridge University Press!


Medical Writing in Early Modern English

Edited by Irma Taavitsainen and Paivi Pahta

This volume provides a new perspective on the evolution of the special language of medicine, based on the electronic corpus of Early Modern English Medical Texts, containing over two million words of medical writing from 1500 to 1700.

Summary Details

Query:   Illocutionary Force/Austin and Searle
Author:  Christian Kjaer Nelson
Submitter Email:  click here to access email
Linguistic LingField(s):   Discourse Analysis

Summary:   Summary of responses to my query regarding the use of the term "force"by
Austin and Searle:

(Many thanks to Thomas Bloor, Seth Kahn, Flink, Susan Mandala, Linda Bawcom,
Joel Walters, MARC PICARD, and especially Ulrich Hermann Wassner, Jeff
Coulter, Mary Bucholtz, and Alan Rumsey and FAJJ76@aol.com for providing the

Citations to key texts by Searle and his commentators which explicate the
notion of force:

Ninio, A. (1986). The Illocutionary Aspect of Utterances. Discourse
Processes 9:2, 127-147.

Jerrold Sadock's "Speech act distinctions in grammar", in
*Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey* (Cambridge University Press,
1988, Frederick Newmeyer, ed)--mainly valuable for the bibliography.

P.F. Strawson's "Intention and Convention in Speech Acts", in his
*Logico-Linguistic Papers* (Metheun & Co, 1971--distributed in
America by Harper & Row). (Originally printed in *The Philosophical
Review*, Vol lxxiii, 1964.)

Corpus Concordance and Collocation by Les Sinclair (August 1991) Oxford Univ
Press; ISBN: 0194371441

Searle, J. R. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in
Society 5:1, 1-23.

Citations to texts which refer to the selection of the term "force" itself:

G.P. Baker & P.M.S. Hacker, LANGUAGE, SENSE AND NONSENSE (Blackwell,1984),
Chapter 3.

Limited Inc / Jacques Derrida.Evanston, IL : Northwestern University Press,
c1988. UM/Univ Lib PN98.D43 D45 1988 DUE 10-01-99

An interesting history of the use of the term "force" from Ulrich Wassner:

I don't know if that's (part of) what you wanted to know, but I am pretty
sure that Austin took the term _illocutionary FORCE_ from Frege's (whom he
translated into English!) _behauptende KRAFT_, which is a prominent term in
Frege's theory of the 'Urteil' ('Assertion') as being compounded (or so) of
a 'beurteilbarer Inhalt' (propositional content) and a 'behauptende Kraft'
('assertive force'). Concerning Searle, I would say he (e.g. in
Searle/Vanderveken 1985) repeats the same dichotomy on several levels: a
speech act is an illocutionary act a n d a propositional act and at the same
time it is identical with the i.a.; the i.a. is made up of a illocutionary
force and a propositional content and at the same time somewhat identical
with the first of this two components; an illocutionary force is made up of
an illocutionary poin t - which is its esential "part", defining its kind or
type - and some other factors, whose relation to the felicity conditions
(besides others, the essential condition - = ip? - and the condition(s) of
the prop. content (!)) is far from clear. So we have at least four levels of
analysis, where one single would surely be enough. Greetings from Occam, who
is shaving at this moment. If you need lots of bibliographical information,
you best look into the real comprehensive bibliography of pragmatics by
Nuyts and Verschueren!!!

My categorization of these cites may be a bit off--I haven't read all of
them yet, but am relatively sure of their contents based on past skimming,
etc. I would also like to add that I also just happened upon S. Cavell's
_Philosophical Passages_ whose first, second, and third chapters discuss
Derrida's _Limited, Inc._. Quite a useful discussion, which suggests that
both Derrida and Searle misrepresent Austin's use of the term "force." This
has some implication for reading Baker and Hacker, too, since they seem to
reference Searle's conception more than Austin's. Cavell provides a strong
feel for Austin's notion, if there is indeed a difference between he and
Searle, though he doesn't specifically speak of Searle's notion.

Thanks, again, to all,
Christian Nelson

LL Issue: 10.1163
Date Posted: 04-Aug-1999
Original Query: Read original query


Sums main page