Summary Details
| Query: |
Illocutionary Force/Austin and Searle
|
|
| Author: | Christian Kjaer Nelson | |
| Submitter Email: | click here to access email | |
| Linguistic LingField(s): |
Discourse Analysis
Pragmatics Semantics |
|
| 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 following.) 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 | |
|
Back |
||
|
|
||
|
Sums main page
|
||
|
About LINGUIST
|
Contact Us
|
Report Broken Link
While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents. |
|
