Talk:Illocutionary act

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics / Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Philosophy: Language Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of language

If you have useful information regarding this topic, please feel free to add to the article (instead of leaving "anonymous" comments on my talk page, Mr. Weemhoff). Thanks. Fuzzform 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Just in Case"[edit]

I have removed this sloppy and, to general English readers entirely incomprehensible expression -- other than, that is, to an extremely small and narrow group of US philosophers -- and have replaced it with its universally comprehensible original: "if, and only if". Other editors might find the following informative:

Dr Lindsay B Yeates (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using "just in case" for decades (why use four words when three will do?). (And no, I'm not a philosopher.) Yet I can vouch for the foregoing from personal experience. As an Australian freshman taking Pure Maths I in 1962, my first encounter with the phrase "if and only if" was in an exam question at the end of first term. Pondering this new (for me) phrase, it dawned on me that what was ostensibly worded as one question really had two parts, and after deciding that "only if" in this context must surely mean the other direction (this was not entirely obvious to me at the time) I was then able to answer it correctly, albeit with fingers crossed that I'd guessed right. Had the wording "just in case" been used, looking back I imagine I would not have realized that the question had two parts, and would therefore have lost marks.

I like the "just in case there's a storm" example. Maybe I'll switch to "precisely when" (but not in exam questions). Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Examples needed[edit]

Each of the concepts needs at least one or two examples; the article is almost incomprehensible as it currently stands. This article opens with the example "Is there any salt?" but this example does not actually meet the definition, which is currently reads:

an illocutionary act is an act: (1) for the performance of which I must make it clear to some other person that the act is performed, and (2) the performance of which involves the production of what Austin calls 'conventional consequences' as, e.g., rights, commitments, or obligations.

I have no clue how a request to pass the salt is (1) an action that is performed (seems like a request for an action to be performed in the future) or (2) that request involves rights, commitments or obligations (the hearer is not obliged to pass the salt; the speaker has no right to receive the salt; there is no commitment that I can make out.) Basically, I'm lost in the very first paragraphs of the article.

Farther down, I read this:

John Austin's well-known example "I bet you five pounds it will rain" is both directive and commissive.

which seems absurd, as it is clearly an assertive, and not a directive or commissive, as no sane listener will ever interpret that phrase to literally mean that a bet is being proposed. No one ever has whipped out their wallet and pulled out a five-pound note as the result of hearing this.

(To be extra clear: normal people understand this phrase to mean "I strongly believe that it will rain", and nothing more. Well, maybe also that "I am a witty and fun person to be around because I talk about the possibility of rain in this jaunty, assured style that is meant to evoke a smile or a laugh from you." Which would make it commissive (the promise that "I am fun to be around") and a directive (the request "please be my friend.") But that's starting to get ... abstract and convoluted. Surely that was not the intent? BTW, "I am fun to be around" seems like a perlocutionary act, meant to impress the listener!?) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the example at the head of the article is reasonably clear, it is Austin that is muddy.

Person A: "Is there any salt?" <-- The locution
Person A: Issued a request for salt <-- the illocution. A asking for salt was the action.
Person B: Now has an obligation to either pass the salt or explain why it isn't do-able. <-- perlocution

Maybe this can be written up a little better. -- M.boli (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]