Commitments and Speech Acts

Q4 Arts and Humanities
R. Harnish
{"title":"Commitments and Speech Acts","authors":"R. Harnish","doi":"10.21825/philosophica.82209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The utterance of a se ntence in a context is not sufficient for the performance of a speech act. Theories of speech acts can be o rganized in ter ms of what must be added. Roughly Austinian theories add rules (or conventions) which govern an utterance in the performance of a speech act, and are shared by hearers in communication. Roughly Gricean theories add the expression of intentional states of speakers, and their recognition in communication by hearers. Gricean and Austinian theories have their respective strengths and weaknesses. Recently, Alston has proposed an inte resting variant in the Austinan tradition, a theory which emphasizes the “normative stance” taken by a speaker with respect to t he utterance of the sentence. Alst on thinks that this notion can replace the expression of intentional states of the Gricean tradition. At least three explications of such a normative stance have been offered, including Alston's. Only one of these is promising and it is possible to argue that on that construal, expressing an inte ntional state in uttering something and taking a normative stance i n ut tering something, are equivalent notions. The really hard work is determining what undertaking a comm itment or resp onsibility amounts to. That we must leave to another occasion.","PeriodicalId":36843,"journal":{"name":"Argumenta Philosophica","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"36","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumenta Philosophica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 36

Abstract

The utterance of a se ntence in a context is not sufficient for the performance of a speech act. Theories of speech acts can be o rganized in ter ms of what must be added. Roughly Austinian theories add rules (or conventions) which govern an utterance in the performance of a speech act, and are shared by hearers in communication. Roughly Gricean theories add the expression of intentional states of speakers, and their recognition in communication by hearers. Gricean and Austinian theories have their respective strengths and weaknesses. Recently, Alston has proposed an inte resting variant in the Austinan tradition, a theory which emphasizes the “normative stance” taken by a speaker with respect to t he utterance of the sentence. Alst on thinks that this notion can replace the expression of intentional states of the Gricean tradition. At least three explications of such a normative stance have been offered, including Alston's. Only one of these is promising and it is possible to argue that on that construal, expressing an inte ntional state in uttering something and taking a normative stance i n ut tering something, are equivalent notions. The really hard work is determining what undertaking a comm itment or resp onsibility amounts to. That we must leave to another occasion.
承诺与言语行为
在一个语境中一个句子的表达对于言语行为的履行来说是不够的。言语行为的理论可以用必须添加的内容来组织。粗略地说,奥斯丁理论增加了规则(或惯例),这些规则(或惯例)在言语行为的表现中支配着话语,并在交流中为听者所共享。粗略地说,grician理论增加了说话人的意图状态的表达,以及听者在交际中的识别。希腊学派和奥地利学派的理论各有优缺点。最近,奥尔斯顿提出了奥地利传统的一个有趣的变体,该理论强调说话者对句子的表达所采取的“规范性立场”。几乎没有人认为这个概念可以取代希腊传统的意向性状态的表达。至少有三种对这种规范性立场的解释,包括奥尔斯顿的解释。其中只有一个是有希望的,我们可以认为,在这个解释上,通过说某事来表达一个国际状态和在表达某事时采取规范性立场,是等价的概念。真正困难的工作是确定承担一项承诺或责任意味着什么。我们必须留待下次再谈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumenta Philosophica
Argumenta Philosophica Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信