CAS LX 502 Semantics 12a. Speech acts Ch. 10(3)

Conventional sentence types Declarative. (Assertion) Declarative. (Assertion) I seem to have forgotten my umbrella. I seem to have forgotten my umbrella. Interrogative. (Question) Interrogative. (Question) Where did I leave it? Where did I leave it? Imperative. (Order/Request) Imperative. (Order/Request) Go find my umbrella! Go find my umbrella! [ Optative. (Wish) ] [ Optative. (Wish) ] If only I had my umbrella! If only I had my umbrella!

Austin (1955/1962/1975) A traditional view of meaning in language at the time (which we have been exploring as well) revolved around the assumptions that: A traditional view of meaning in language at the time (which we have been exploring as well) revolved around the assumptions that: The basic sentence type is declarative. The basic sentence type is declarative. The main use of language is to describe states of affairs The main use of language is to describe states of affairs The meaning of utterances can be described in terms of truth and falsity (or the situations in which an utterance would be true/false). The meaning of utterances can be described in terms of truth and falsity (or the situations in which an utterance would be true/false). However, there are many sentence types and usages that cannot really be said to be “true” or “false”. This seems to cover only declaratives, and not even all of them. However, there are many sentence types and usages that cannot really be said to be “true” or “false”. This seems to cover only declaratives, and not even all of them.

How to do things with words Language—actually affecting the world. Language—actually affecting the world. — I bet you $1 you can’t name the Super Tuesday states. *(—You’re on). — I bet you $1 you can’t name the Super Tuesday states. *(—You’re on). I ate a sandwich. I ate a sandwich. I promise to get up early and vote. I promise to get up early and vote. I need the day off. I need the day off. I (now) pronounce you man and wife. I (now) pronounce you man and wife. I hereby revoke your license for 90-days. I hereby revoke your license for 90-days. May I have the salt? May I have the salt? NY, CA, MA, OH, VT, MN, CT, MD, RI, GA

Performative utterances Certain utterances actually perform an act. Certain utterances actually perform an act. I promise that I will do my homework. I promise that I will do my homework. I hereby declare this meeting adjourned. I hereby declare this meeting adjourned. #I hereby cook this cake. #I hereby cook this cake. For performative utterances, whether they are true or not is not at issue; rather, we might ask whether they work (felicitous) or not (infelicitous). For performative utterances, whether they are true or not is not at issue; rather, we might ask whether they work (felicitous) or not (infelicitous).

Felicity Generally speaking: Generally speaking: A1. There must be an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, the procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances… A1. There must be an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, the procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances… A2. The particular persons and circumstances must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked… A2. The particular persons and circumstances must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked… B1. The procedure must be executed by all the participants correctly… B1. The procedure must be executed by all the participants correctly… B2. …and completely… B2. …and completely… Also: sincerity as specified by the procedure. Also: sincerity as specified by the procedure.

Misfire and abuse A speech act will misfire if the conditions aren’t met. A speech act will misfire if the conditions aren’t met. I pronounce you man and wife. I pronounce you man and wife. You are hereby charged with treason. You are hereby charged with treason. A speech act can be abused if insincerly performed. A speech act can be abused if insincerly performed. I bet you $1,000,000 you will fail the test. I bet you $1,000,000 you will fail the test.

Three elements of a speech act Locutionary act: speaking/writing a grammatical utterance. Locutionary act: speaking/writing a grammatical utterance. Illocutionary act: action intended by the speaker. Illocutionary act: action intended by the speaker. Perlocutionary act: effect intended by the speaker. Perlocutionary act: effect intended by the speaker. Arrest that man! Arrest that man! Urging, advising, … Urging, advising, … Persuading, … Persuading, …

Categorization of speech acts Searle (1976): Five main types Searle (1976): Five main types Representatives. Commit to the truth of expressed proposition Representatives. Commit to the truth of expressed proposition Asserting, concluding, … Asserting, concluding, … Directives. Attempts to get addressee to do something Directives. Attempts to get addressee to do something Demanding, questioning, requesting, … Demanding, questioning, requesting, … Commissives. Commit to a future course of action Commissives. Commit to a future course of action Promising, threatening, offering, … Promising, threatening, offering, … Expressives. Express a psychological state Expressives. Express a psychological state Thanking, apologizing, congratulating, … Thanking, apologizing, congratulating, … Declarations. Effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs. Declarations. Effect immediate changes in the institutional state of affairs. Christening, firing, marrying, … Christening, firing, marrying, …

Defining speech acts à la Searle Schema: Schema: Preparatory condition(s) Preparatory condition(s) Propositional condition(s) Propositional condition(s) Sincerity conditions(s) Sincerity conditions(s) Essential condition(s) Essential condition(s) Promising (by S to H of A via P using E): Promising (by S to H of A via P using E): Prep1: H would prefer S’s doing A to his not doing A and S believes H would prefer S’s doing A to not doing A. Prep1: H would prefer S’s doing A to his not doing A and S believes H would prefer S’s doing A to not doing A. Prep2: It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events. Prep2: It is not obvious to both S and H that S will do A in the normal course of events. Prop: In expressing that P, S predicates a future act A of S. Prop: In expressing that P, S predicates a future act A of S. Sinc: S intends to do A Sinc: S intends to do A Ess: the utterance E counts as an undertaking to do A. Ess: the utterance E counts as an undertaking to do A.

Defining speech acts à la Searle Schema: Schema: Preparatory condition(s) Preparatory condition(s) Propositional condition(s) Propositional condition(s) Sincerity conditions(s) Sincerity conditions(s) Essential condition(s) Essential condition(s) Questioning (by S to H via P using E): Questioning (by S to H via P using E): Prep1: S does not know the missing information. Prep1: S does not know the missing information. Prep2: It is not obvious to S and H that H will provide the information without being asked. Prep2: It is not obvious to S and H that H will provide the information without being asked. (Prop: No condition, any proposition.) (Prop: No condition, any proposition.) Sinc: S wants the missing information. Sinc: S wants the missing information. Ess: The act counts as an attempt to elicit this information from H. Ess: The act counts as an attempt to elicit this information from H.

Implicit v. explicit performatives I hereby promise to pay you 35 euros. I hereby promise to pay you 35 euros. I’ll give you 35 euros. I’ll give you 35 euros. (a promise, not a prediction or a statement). (a promise, not a prediction or a statement). It’s a fuzzy line. It’s a fuzzy line.

Overriding convention: indirect speech acts Can you pass the spinach? Can you pass the spinach? Why don’t you go find your teddy bear? Why don’t you go find your teddy bear? Direct act: question, indirect act: request. Direct act: question, indirect act: request. I must ask you to leave. I must ask you to leave. Direct act: statement, indirect act: order/request Direct act: statement, indirect act: order/request It’s freezing in here. It’s freezing in here. Direct act: statement, indirect act: request Direct act: statement, indirect act: request So how do we know which one is meant? So how do we know which one is meant?

Literal and non-literal Can you pass the spinach? Can you pass the spinach? (Please) pass the spinach. (Please) pass the spinach. I wish you wouldn’t tap your pencil. I wish you wouldn’t tap your pencil. (Please) stop tapping your pencil. (Please) stop tapping your pencil. Are you going to eat your peas? Are you going to eat your peas? (Please) eat your peas. (Please) eat your peas. Searle: These work by addressing one of the conditions. Searle: These work by addressing one of the conditions. Requesting (by S to H of A) Requesting (by S to H of A) Prep: H is able to perform A. Prep: H is able to perform A. Sinc: S wants H to do A. Sinc: S wants H to do A. Prop: S predicates a future act A of H. Prop: S predicates a future act A of H. Ess: Counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A. Ess: Counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A.

How we understand indirect speech acts Searle: reasoning from Searle: reasoning from Felicity conditions Felicity conditions Context Context Principles of cooperative conversation Principles of cooperative conversation Can you pass the salt? (Quantity) Can you pass the salt? (Quantity) I wish you wouldn’t tap your pencil. (Relation) I wish you wouldn’t tap your pencil. (Relation) Convention: Are you capable of passing me the salt? Convention: Are you capable of passing me the salt? Perception of the direct act: Yes indeed. Perception of the direct act: Yes indeed.

Why be indirect? Close the window. Close the window. Can you close the window? Can you close the window? I don’t suppose you could close the window, could you? I don’t suppose you could close the window, could you? I wonder if you’d mind closing the window. I wonder if you’d mind closing the window. It’s rather chilly in here. It’s rather chilly in here. Diminishing threats to face (worthiness, autonomy). Diminishing threats to face (worthiness, autonomy). I’d love to go, but I have to wash my hair, I have a headache, and it’s my mother’s birthday. Maybe another time. I’d love to go, but I have to wash my hair, I have a headache, and it’s my mother’s birthday. Maybe another time.

                      

Librarians and limits on QR Some librarian or other found every book. Some librarian or other found every book. One librarian, or one per book. One librarian, or one per book. [ S some librarian found [ NP every book] ] [ S some librarian found [ NP every book] ] [ NP every book] i [ S some librarian found t i ]. [ NP every book] i [ S some librarian found t i ]. Some librarian knows that Pat found every book. Some librarian knows that Pat found every book. One librarian, but not one per book. One librarian, but not one per book. In order to get the “one per book” interpretation, we would need to use QR to bring every book up higher in the structure than some librarian or other. This suggests that QR can only move a quantifier as high as the smallest S in which it is found. In order to get the “one per book” interpretation, we would need to use QR to bring every book up higher in the structure than some librarian or other. This suggests that QR can only move a quantifier as high as the smallest S in which it is found. [ S Some librarian knows [ S that Pat found every book]] [ S Some librarian knows [ S that Pat found every book]] [ NP every book] i [ S some lib. knows [ S that Pat found t i ]]. [ NP every book] i [ S some lib. knows [ S that Pat found t i ]].

More about librarians Some librarian or other found out which book every student needed. Some librarian or other found out which book every student needed. One librarian or one librarian per book. One librarian or one librarian per book. Some librarian found out, for each student x, the book that x needed. Some librarian found out, for each student x, the book that x needed. For each student x, there is a (possibly different) librarian that found out the book that x needed. For each student x, there is a (possibly different) librarian that found out the book that x needed. That shouldn’t be possible: That shouldn’t be possible: [ S some librarian found out [ S which book every student needed]]. [ S some librarian found out [ S which book every student needed]].

Still more about librarians And it isn’t really… And it isn’t really… Some librarian i or other found out which book every boy stole from her i. Some librarian i or other found out which book every boy stole from her i. One librarian, not one per boy. One librarian, not one per boy. #For every boy x, there is some librarian or other that found out the book that x stole from her. #For every boy x, there is some librarian or other that found out the book that x stole from her. Why? Why? [ S some librarian i found out [ S which book every boy stole from her i ]] [ S some librarian i found out [ S which book every boy stole from her i ]]

QR of questions? Consider the pair-list kind of question What did everyone buy? interpreted as a series of questions What did Pat buy? What did Tracy buy? … defined by the smallest set that can count as everyone. Consider the pair-list kind of question What did everyone buy? interpreted as a series of questions What did Pat buy? What did Tracy buy? … defined by the smallest set that can count as everyone. Some librarian or other found out [which book every student needed]. Some librarian or other found out [which book every student needed]. For every question Q in the series defined by Which book did every student need?, some librarian or other found out the answer to Q. For every question Q in the series defined by Which book did every student need?, some librarian or other found out the answer to Q.

QR of questions? Some librarian or other found out [which book every student needed]. Some librarian or other found out [which book every student needed]. [ S some librarian found out [ S which book every student needed] ] [ S some librarian found out [ S which book every student needed] ] Some librarian or other found out every answer. Some librarian or other found out every answer. [ S which book every student needed] i [ S some librarian found out t i ] [ S which book every student needed] i [ S some librarian found out t i ] It’s as if the entire embedded question acts as a quantifier. That isn’t moving out of its S. It’s as if the entire embedded question acts as a quantifier. That isn’t moving out of its S. Idea: when a question is interpreted as a series of questions (the “pair-list” interpretation), it can be considered a quantifier itself. Idea: when a question is interpreted as a series of questions (the “pair-list” interpretation), it can be considered a quantifier itself.

Librarians continued… Some librarian i or other found out which book every boy stole from her i. Some librarian i or other found out which book every boy stole from her i. For every question Q in the series defined by Which book did every boy steal from her i ?, some librarian i or other found out the answer to Q. For every question Q in the series defined by Which book did every boy steal from her i ?, some librarian i or other found out the answer to Q. [Which book did every boy steal from her] i some librarian i found out t i. [Which book did every boy steal from her] i some librarian i found out t i. The idea is that if the question is raised up to a position above some librarian in the tree, some librarian no longer has scope/control over the pronoun her, and so the choice of (possibly different) librarians cannot determine the referent of her. The idea is that if the question is raised up to a position above some librarian in the tree, some librarian no longer has scope/control over the pronoun her, and so the choice of (possibly different) librarians cannot determine the referent of her.

Last point on librarians and QR Some librarian or other thinks I found out which book every boy needed. Some librarian or other thinks I found out which book every boy needed. One librarian, not one-per-boy. One librarian, not one-per-boy. [ S Some librarian or other thinks [ S I found out [ S which book every boy needed] ] ]. [ S Some librarian or other thinks [ S I found out [ S which book every boy needed] ] ].