searle 1.pdf

7/30/2019 Searle 1.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/searle-1pdf 1/15

The Classification of Cooperative Illocutionary ActsAuthor(s): Michael HancherSource: Language in Society, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Apr., 1979), pp. 1-14Published by: Cambridge University Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4167036 .

Accessed: 29/08/2013 13:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language

in Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 201.234.181.53 on Thu, 29 Aug 2013 13:08:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4167036?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/4167036?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



Llg. Soc. 8, i-14. Printed n Great Britain

The classificationofcooperative illocutionaryacts,

MICHAEL HANCHER

UniversityfMinnesota

ABSTRACT

The differentaxonomiesf llocutionaryctsproposed y Austin, earle,Vendler, hmann, ndFraser re omparedn ummaryorm, ith earle'staxonomyaken s a referencetandard. llfive fthese axonomieslighttwokinds f llocutionaryct: i) illocutionarycts hat ombine ommissivewithdirectivellocutionaryorcee.g., offering,nviting,hallenging),nd(2) illocutionarycts thatrequire woparticipantse.g., giving, elling,contracting).heseandrelatedpeech cts rediscussednsomedetail, ndSearle'sclassifications amended otake hemnto ccount.Speech acts,Austin, earle, aw, ontracts,nglish.)

The philosopher .L. Austinsbestknownorhavingdentifiedhe llocutionary

as the central omponent f anguage se (Austin1962). An illocutionaryctis an act performedn theuttering f a meaningfultterance;t s differentbothfrom he mereutteringa locutionaryct),and from he causing f anycontingentonsequencea perlocutionaryct). Simply outterhe entenceShutthat oor' s toperform locutionaryct.To address hat entence o an appro-priate erson n appropriateircumstancese.g., near an open door) with heintentionf ordering imto shutthe door,and thereby ommunicatinghatintention,s to performn illocutionaryct the act of ordering). etting hatperson o shutthe door, or, alternatively, akinghimangry, re differentperlocutionaryctsthatyou might erformyperforminghose ocutionarynd

illocutionarycts.None of these speechacts' is unimportant;utthecrucial ne is the llo-cutionaryct; itdeterminesowthe utterances to be taken'.The same ocu-tionaryct could subserve ny one of many llocutionarycts: in differentcircumstances,or xample, oumightay Shut he oor' oorderomeone o hutthedoor, r torequesthathe shut hedoor, r togive ermissionorhim o shutthedoor.Or you might ay Dinner s in half n hour' n various ircumstancessimply ostate hefact as in response o a question), r to requesthat omeonehurry p,ortowarn im hathewill oon runout oftime.Thoughwithin ach

(i] Preparationof this paper was made possible by a research grant from the NationalEndowmentor he Humanities, 1977-78.

0047-4045/79/0079-0001$2.50 (? '979 Cambridge UniversityPress

I







MICHAEL HANCHER

set ofexamples hewords ndmeaning rethe ame, achutterancectcarriesa differentillocutionaryorce'. hereforehe bilityodiscriminatellocutionaryforceswillbe an importantartofanycompletemodelof a speaker-hearer'slinguisticcompetence'.

Speakersndhearers f languagecquire his bilitynformallyndnaturally,startings infants. ecentlyhilosophersndlinguists ave etout togive t aformalescription.art fthisdescriptionnvolveshedefinitionndanalysis fparticularinds f llocutionarycts;a classic tudy fthis ort s John earle'sanalysisfpromisingSearle969: 54-7I). Anotherartnvolveshe lassifyingof differentllocutionarycts and Austin stimatedhat herewere housandsof such acts intorelativelyew basic groups.Austinhimselfmadethe firsteffortn thisdirection,ear he ndofHowtoDo Things ithWordsI962). Morerecentlyhere avebeendifferentlassificationsroposed yVendler1972: 6-26),OhmannI972), Fraser1974a)and Searle 0976).2The lastofthese s themostpowerful.

Searle dentifiesive asickinds f llocutionarycts, epresentatives,irectives,commissives,xpressives,nddeclarations,lusan importantubclass, epresenta-tive eclarations.

Representativescommit he peakerinvaryingegrees) osomething'seing

thecase,to the truth f theexpressed roposition'I976: io). The degrees fcommitmentary romweakcases such as hypothesizinghat tostrong asessuchas solemnlywearinghat ; assertinghat andstatinghat aretypical.Representativesan be coloredbycircumstance:hey anreflect,s a kindofbonus,thespeaker's nterestn thepropositionhe mayboast hat he earns$20,000 a year, rcomplainhat e earns 20,000 a year, epending);rtheymayrelate o anothertretchf hediscourseas I canreplyhat inresponseo whatyouhave ust said,or concludehat fromwhatyouor I have ustsaid).

Directivesare attemptsofvarying egrees...) by thespeaker o getthehearer odosomething'x976: i). The degrees f ttempt ary rom eak ases

such s suggestinghatyoudoA tostrongases uchas commandinghatyoudoA. Questionsre directives, ecause theyare attemptso get the hearer operformspeech ct' Searle 975: 356).Other xamplesrerequesting,raying,permitting,dvising.

Commissivesre those llocutionaryctswhosepointsto commit he peaker(again nvaryingegrees) o somefutureourse faction'1976: ii). AlthoughSearledoesnot ay o,thedegreesf ommitmentere aryn a relativelyarrowrange, romndertakingo doA throughromisingo do A toguaranteeingo do

[2] Searle's article has been published twoothertimes, n slightly ifferentorms:Searle

(1975) and Searle (1977). For preliminary ersions of Vendler's analysissee Vendler(1970a, b). For a restatement f Fraser's taxonomy,withminorchanges, see Fraser1975a. Campbell (1975) tries o synthesize heOhmann and Searle taxonomies.McCaw-ley (1977) adopts Vendler's analysis,with minoradjustments.

2







CLASSIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS

A andsolemly owingodo A. (Partof whatvariation here s involves xtra-linguisticnstitutions,ike thoseofreligion rthe aw.The commonaw, forexample, rovides emedies or omebroken romises,utnotothers.)

Expressivesxpress whetherincerelyr not) a psychologicaltate n thespeaker egardingstate f affairshat he expressiveefers o orpresupposesbut does not ssert. ypicalexpressivesrethanking,ongratulating,elcoming,deploring.

Representativesurporto matchanguageoa presenteality; hey epresentin anguagetheway hingsre'. Commissivesnddirectives ndertakeo shapea futureealityo matchwhat s saidnow;theywork o controln anguagewhat

the peakerwilldo commissives)r what hehearerwilldo directives).xpres-sivesneither epresentor coercereality; hey ake t forgranted,ndsimplyreact o t. Searle's astmajor lass,declarations,re ike ommissivesnddirec-tives n affectingheworld, uttheydo so immediately,ot mediately. nychangen theworld hat commissivera directiveffects illbeaperlocution-ary ffectthe peakermows he awn, s hehadpromised;hehearerakes utthegarbage,s he had beenordered). utthechangeworked ya declarationsillocutionary,nherentn thespeechact, immediate, otdeferred.f I havethe bsolute uthorityofire ou, ndI fire ou, henyou're ired.WhenCon-gress eclareswar,war s declared. f I namemycanoeWadesboot, hat s itsname.Sayingmakes t o.' The social nstitutionsfchurch, tate, nd anguageitself oth uthorizeuch declarationsnd derive dentityrom hem.Almostmagical hocus-pocus,on one etymology3),eclarations rea verypowerful lassof llocutionaryct.

Technically subclass fdeclarations,utvirtuallydistinctlass, rerepre-sentative eclarations.ike any representative, representativeeclarationinvolves truth laim;but talsotranscendst, arryinghe bsolute orce f adeclaration.f anumpire ules hat heball was n, heball scounted s in, venif t was outand wasseentobe outbyothers.fthe uryfinds he defendantguilty,e s counted uilty,ven fhe s nnocent.ometimes formalppeal anresult n a new and more ccurate epresentativeeclarationo overrulenddisplace heold inaccuratene; but appeal is not inevitable, or inevitablysuccessful;ndfailing successfulppeal, he wrong' eclaration olds.

On thewhole his s a very legant ystem.t ismuch ighternd more on-sistent hanAustin'soriginal ive-categoryffort, hichSearle 1976: 7-10)

criticizesn omedetail,nd t smore conomicalhan hedifferentlassificationsproposedyVendler, hmann,nd Fraser. able I, necessarilyimplified,ivessome mpressionf he omprehensivenessndefficiencyf achof hese arious

[3] Hocus-pocuswas a fake Latin formulaused by conjurersand jugglers. In the seven-teenth enturyArchbishop Tillotson suggested thatthephrase was 'nothing else but acorruption fhocestcorpus, y wayofridiculous mitation fthepriests fthe Church ofRome in theirtrick f Transubstantiation' OED).

3







MICHAEL HANCHER

tW taso U o boC5

Yu

t4)

.5~~~~~~: 0cs 8 8:8H~~~~~~~~4 %" V.>Fme

0 0 0 E 3 E e

4








systems.Within achsystem,achcategorys numberedeparately,o drawattentiono repeatedntries.)

It sobvious ven nthis able hatOhmann'systemsunlike llthe thersnhaving relativelyine rain. houghhisbasiccategoriesreno more umerousthanthoseof the other ystems, hmannprovidesmany subcategoriesomediate etweenhe fewbasiccategoriesnd thethousandsfparticularindsof llocutionarycts that ll these ystems eneralize.This finer rain its isspecial urpose, hich stobuild refinedutmanageable atrixf llocutionary-acttypes, obe cited ndescribingifferentiterarytyles.)

Moreto thepoint fthispaper,t s alsoobvious romhe able hatOhmannmakes rovisionor categoryhat veryonelse ignores,hecategoryhathecalls conditionals'.f Searle's lassifications tobe madetruly omprehensive,it willhaveto be enlargedoprovide or ertain inds f speech ctsrelated o'conditionals'. hese includethemaking f contracts, prime ocial use oflanguage.

Ohmann ctuallyaysveryittle bout conditionals',robably ecause heyfigureo little n discursive iterature. ut whathe does say is suggestive.Accordingo Ohmann,conditionals're amalgamatedpeechacts,oining n'influencer'nd commissive'inSearle's erms, directive'nd commissive').

Conjunctiveonditionalsre

ikely obe bargains':(I) Stayforhalf nhour, nd I'll makeyoua drinkOhmann 972: 125).

Disjunctive onditionalsre ikely o be 'threats':

(2) StoporI'll shootOhmann 972: 125).

But nfactI) isnot bargain; t eastnotyet.Notuntil hehearerssents oit,verballyrnonverbally,s in 3) and 4) below, oth fwhich rebargains:

(3) S: Stayforhalf nhour, ndI'll makeyou a drink.

H: Fine.(4) S: Stayforhalf n hour, ndI'll makeyou a drink.

(H stays.)

(I) by tselfs only noffer.Nonetheless,I) is obviously 'conditional'ffer.t isthis onditionalspect

thatOhmann inds eculiar, ndthat romptsisresort o a double llocutionarydescriptionor hegeneral lassof conditionals':Influenceri.e.,directive]{and/or}Commissive'. Such a descriptionssigns a differentimple llo-cutionaryabelto eachcomponententenceand act) ofthecompoundentence

(andcompound ct).Butconsiderimple entences, tteredomakeunconditionalffers,hetherindirectly5-(7), ordirectly8):







MICHAEL HANCHER

(5) I'll makeyoua drink.(6) Wouldyou ike drink?

(7) Have a drink.(8) I herebyffer oua drink.

There s somethingeculiar bout hese peech cts, oo; and again, s we shallsee, the peculiaritynvolves n amalgamation'f differentllocutionaryorces.But here he llocutionarymalgamations basic, nd is not to be referredaswithOhmann'sconditionals')o the onjoiningf wo entenceserformingwocorrelatedllocutionarycts.

Considernviting, hichssimilaro offering.earle1976: i ) classes nvitingas a directive;nd when invite outo do' something,am indeed ryingodirect our ehavior. ut more han hat s involved.f invite ou o mypartyand thenrefuse o letyou n, youwillnormally avegrounds o object.Thereason or his sthat n invitationsnot nly directiveut lso a commissive:tcommits he peaker oa certainourse fbehavior imself.

Offeringas the amedoublenature. o offeromethingo someones bothtotry odirect hatperson's ehavior,nd also to commitneself o a corre-spondingourse fbehavior.n offeringouwine amtryingogetyou odrinkwine nd also committingyselfoprovide ouwithwine o drink.4

Offering,endering,idding,nviting,olunteering,nd formalhallengingre llhybrid peech ctsthat ombine irective ith ommissivellocutionaryorce.5As such theyneed to be speciallyprovided or n Searle's taxonomy. etus callthem ommissiveirectives.

This hybrid lass is differentrom earle's analogous lass representativedeclarationsnone mportantespect. s we saw above, hedeclarativeorce frepresentativeeclarationverridests representativeorce; hat s whySearlemakes he lassa subclass fdeclarations.utcommissiveirectivesreequallycommissivenddirective; eitherorce ominates. he class s suigeneris.6

[4] Consider this interchange:

'Have some wine', the March Hare said in an encouraging one.Alice lookedall roundthetable, but therewas nothing n it but tea. I don't see any

wine', she remarked.'There isn't any', said the March Hare.'Then itwasn'tvery ivilof you to offert', said Alice angrily.Carroll I97l: 54-55.)

Here Alice emphasizes thecommissive spect of offering. ut offerings also directive;when I (felicitiously) ffer ou something try,howeverweakly, o get you to take it.

[s] Threateningooks superficiallyike these; but I agree with Fraser (1975b: 175) thatdespite appearances threats re notgenuinely ommissive.

[6] Sui generis n two senses: an independent lass, and a unique kind of class - that s, a

uniquely hybrid lass. (Representativedeclarations re not truehybrids but a variantkind of declaration.)Why is thishybrid class possible but not one of, say, commissive expressives,or

representative irectives? Because the word-world relationship, r 'direction of fit'

6








The equivocal ature f ommissiveirectives akes hem atural ehicles orsocial and psychologicalquivocation.n particular,he directivespectsofofferingnd nvitingan behidden, or itherpeaker r heareror both), ehindthe ppearancesfa generosityf commitmentn thespeaker's art.Offering,like nviting,s a potentially anipulativect,for tcan be obvious in a givencase)that he ct s commissive,ut notobvious hat t s directiveswell.

Commissive irectivesll look towards ompletionn someresponse ythehearer.7 n thisrespect heymay eem ike nydirective, hich eeks hearer-responses a perlocutionaryffect.utcommissive irectivesredifferentromsimpledirectives,ecause theresponse ought s itselfllocutionaryn nature,

andcangiverise oa peculiarlyomplex llocutionaryituation ineffect,o acooperativellocutionaryct.

If I offer ou my anoe, hat fferooks owards othyour cceptance ftheoffernd,whatsvirtuallyhe ame hing, our cceptancef he anoe.8 uchanacceptancewould be illocutionaryn structure, hether r not expressednwords.You could ust silentlyake hecanoe, herebyccepting othmy fferand the anoe.)ThoughSearledoes not ay o, acceptingn this ense s a kind fdeclarationcf.Ohmann972: 127).

Thereforenekindofillocutionaryct, the declaration iving or gift),9scompoundedf wo therllocutionarycts nvolvingwo peakers: commissivedirective ffermatchedby a declarative cceptance. iving s a cooperativeillocutionaryct.

Barter oo is a cooperativellocutionaryct, slightlymore omplicatedhangift. f in trade offer ou mycanoe and you offerme yourkayak, nd if weaccept achother's fferndeach other's oods, hen he ooperativeeclaration

(Searle 1976: 3-4, etc.) is the same for commissivesas fordirectives i.e., 'world-to-word'; cf. Searle 1976: iI). No otherpair of classes shares a common directionof fit.

Because theyhavethe same direction ffit, earle would have preferred ottohave to

distinguish ommissivesfromdirectives n thefirst lace; but theirobvious differencesmade a taxonomic distinctionnecessary if 'inelegant' (Searle 1976: II-I2). If thehybrid lass ofcommissivedirectives iscussedhere s as inelegant, t s no lessnecessary.(Note thatthere s nothing legantabout Searle's solitary ubcategory frepresentativedeclarations,but that he justifies hatclass nonetheless.)

[7] Samek (I965: 204): ' "Promise" and "offer"do notrunon the same track, houghthewords are sometimesused synonymously. n offerooks to an acceptanceor a rejectionin a waya promisedoes not.' But Samek ismistaken nsaying hat an offertipulates rat least implies a quid pro quo on the part of the promisee'.

[8] The potentialdifferenceetweenthesetwokinds ofacceptancecan be seen in thecasewhere I offer ou mycanoe, and you verbally ccept the offer, ut the canoe is lost atsea beforeyou have a chance to accept it. One legal encyclopediaburkesthisdistinctionbyspeakingof acceptanceof thegift', n a contextwhere the gift' ould plausiblyreferto eitherthe object itself r the offer o give the object (Kiser 1943: 807-8).

[9] Searle (1976: I4) instancesgiving as a kind of declaration.Although he evidentlymeans testamentary iving, the same classificationholds for giftsamong the living,whether ccompanied bywordsor not.

7







MICHAEL HANCHER

ofbarterrises rom concatenationfourmutual ommissiveirective ffersanddeclarativecceptances.

The situations structurallyhe ame fweexchangemy anoefor our ioo -regardlessf whetherucha transactions called barterra sale.10

Andthe ase s similarfweexchange romises.f offero promise o delivermy anoetoyounextAugust, n conditionhatyou promiseodeliver Ioo tome n return,nd fyou acceptmyofferyso promising,hen urexchange fpromises onstitutes hat s technicallyalled a bilateral ontractthe mostordinary ind of contract).1, learlybilateral ontracts,oo, are cooperativeillocutionarycts.

So farwehave dentifiedwoproblematicinds fspeechact. x) Someuni-lateral llocutionaryctshaveboth ommissivenddirectiveorce: or xample,inviting,ffering,idding,ormalhallenging.hese all lookforwardo some ctby the hearer,llocutionaryn structurefnot nsubstance, hichwillrespondto the original peech ctso as togiveriseto 2) a cooperativellocutionaryctinvolving ore han neagent,uch s agiftwhetherfgoods rofhospitality);a barter; sale;or a contractincluding contractoduel).To mark he eleologi-cal connectionetweenhese woclasses, hefirstlass, ommissiveirectives,couldbe called precooperative'llocutionarycts.

There snospecialprovisionor ither roblematiclass nanyoftheclassi-ficationsummarized bove. In a related rticleFraser 1974b: 436) evenexplicitly ejects s 'non-illocutionary'uchactsas 'making bet n which hehearermust otonly ecognizehe ntent f he peakerthat he peaker esiresto enter ntoa contract)ut where hehearermust ndicate correspondingwillingness'.12can ympathizeith raser'swish o keepbasic onceptsimple,but t eems rbitraryodismiss ettingndthe ike ssomehownon-illocution-ary.

Austin's inal lassificationsnot ensitiveotheseproblems; ut ntheearlystages fhisargument,henhe wasreviewinghekinds f things hat an go

wrongwithperformativetterances,e did throw ut somevery uggestivecomments bout cooperativend precooperativepeech acts. One kindof'infelicity'hat an nfectllocutionaryctsAustin ubbed 'hitch'. n thecaseofa hitch,

[Io] Narrow definitions f barter, ncludingall those in the OED and in Black (i968),exclude monetary ransactions;but broaderdefinitions onceive of sales as a species ofbarter; cf. Ballentine I969), Corbin (x963: 8).

[i i] Bilateral contracts re distinguished rom nilateral ontracts,n which only one partymakesa promise e.g., I publiclyoffer 1OOfor nformation oncerning he whereaboutsofmy canoe). Only ifand whentheyare acted on by a second partydo such unilateralcontractsbecome cooperative llocutionary cts.

[12] FraserI974a)

doesn't takequite so hard a line; there s a passing reference o makinga bet 142), and betting s also instanced s an 'act of committing'143). But there s noentry orbetting n the istof verbsof committing' I47) - nor n the virtually denticallist of acts of committing' iven in Fraser (I975a: 193).

8








we attempt o carryout the procedurebut the act is abortive.For example:my attempt omake a bet bysaying I betyousixpence' is abortiveunless you

say 'I take you on' or wordsto thateffect;myattempt o marryby saying I

will' is abortive f the womansays I will not'; myattempt o challengeyou is

abortive f I say 'I challengeyou' but I failto send roundmyseconds....Naturally sometimes uncertaintiesabout whether anythingfurther s

requiredor not will arise. For example, areyou requiredto accept thegift f

I am to give you something?Certainlyin formalbusiness acceptance isrequired,butis this ordinarilyo? Similar uncertaintyrises fan appointmentis madewithout he consentof thepersonappointed.The questionhere s how

far can acts be unilateral?Similarlythe question arises as to when the act isat an end, what counts as its completion?Austin I962: 36-7)

This is a rich veinofspeculation;manyofthequestionsthat Austinraisesherehave yetto be settled.

To take the last questionfirst:how largeis an illocutionary ct?Accordingto

Searle (I969: 25), 'the characteristic rammatical orm f theillocutionaryct isthe complete entence'.On thefaceof t thiswould seem to excludeall cooperativeillocutionary cts, which in their fullyarticulatedform involve at least twosentences.13 nd yetSearle acknowledgesthat making... a bet' is 'performing

an illocutionary ct', even as 'sayingcertainthingsconstitutesgettingmarried'(Searle 1976: 14). These bilateralcontracts, etting nd marriage, oth involvemorethan theone sentence upposedtobe 'characteristic' f llocutionarycts.14

Austin'sothermajorquestion s, how far an [speech]actsbe unilateral?'Thetwoproblematic ases that he raises are gifts nd appointments.For both casesthe answerseemsto be, notveryfar.

Regardinggifts, fteracknowledgingthat in formalbusiness acceptance isrequired',Austin wonderswhether his is ordinarilyo'. I think t s. You cannot

unilaterally iveme money, nymore than I can unilaterally iveyou a litter fkittens r a Saint Bernard.I can refuse o accept thegiftof money too proud,

maybe),even as you can refuse o accept thegiftof the kittens r dog.Of courseitis notnecessary hatacceptancebe explicit;to acceptthegift fa

canoe you don't have to say 'I herebyaccept yourgiftof this canoe'. But thensuchexplicit cceptance s notnecessaryn formalegalcircumstances ither.An

[I3] In less articulated orms ither r both sentences ould be 'deleted', taken forgranted.The cooperative tructure nd the significance f a) and (b) can be identical:

(a) S: I herebygiveyou this S5 bill. (S hands the note to H.)H: I hereby ccept this $5 bill. (H takesthe note.)

(b) (S silentlyhands a $5 bill to H, who silently akes it.)

[i4] Garvey 1975) providesanotherperspective n thequestionof the size or scale oftheillocutionary ct. She proposes that in conversation he 'domain' of one illocutionaryact may extendover several sentences,as the participantsclarify he nature and thepropriety f the speech act beingnegotiated.

9







MICHAEL HANCHER

acceptancemay eexpressr mplied/ ll that snecessarys that he cceptancebe 'unmistakablend unconditional*Kiser 1943: 807-8).

There is one seeming xception,which n factonly proves he rulethat

acceptance s analytically equired f an effectiveift. n some cases for

example,fthegifts clearly eneficialnd thedonnees laboringnder ome

disability' a courtmay egallypresume'hat hedonnee asaccepted hegift,even fhe waswholly naware f t, as where t s given o a third erson or hebenefitf,orin trust or* hedonnee' Kiser1943: 859-60).Even hereit isnotthecase that cceptances notnecessary; ather,t s theanalytic ecessitythat hegift eperfectedyacceptancehat rives he ourt opresumeccept-ance, s theonlypossiblewayofprotectinghegift.

Testamentaryequests,oo, equire cceptance. eaving ropertyo someonein a will s nota unilaterallyffectivect; to be perfectedtmustbe metbyacceptance, hetherxpress,mplied, rpresumed.

Austin's ther roblemnvolvesanappointment..madewithouthe onsentof hepersonppointed'. as he then eenppointed?hatprobablyepends nwhetherhe ppointments nthenaturef n order rnot. fthe peaker asthe

authorityo make uch nassignmentithouthe onsent f he ppointee,henthe ppointee as been ppointed that s,he hasbeenordered o serven such-and-such

capacity.Butmanyfnotmost ppointmentsnvolve oluntaryervice y he ppointee.In those asesappointings not a unilateral irective ut a jointdeclaration,cooperativellocutionaryct,which equiresheparticipationftheappointee.Again, cceptance an be either xpressed r implied.Robert's ulesofOrdersummarizes uch onventionalracticewhen tstipulateshat member fa

parliamentaryrganizationwho remainsilentwhenpresumablyware hathehas been named o a duty s regardeds accepting,ndthereby laceshimselfunder he ameobligationss ifhe hadexpresslyccepted' Robert 970:250).Such a presumptionolds oo fornominating.

Curiously,f n act of appointing'oes notmeetwith he ppointee'sccept-ance, t s noteasy o describetas appointingsee (nb) below);rather,t s an

attempttappointingas in 12b)).But an act ofnominatinghat oesnotmeetwith cceptancean be described snominatingas in na)).

(9a) Smithnominatedones ostand or lection.

(9b) Smith ppointedones o thecommittee.

(10a) Smithnominated ones o stand forelection, nd he accepted henomination.

(10b) PSmithppointed oneso the ommittee,nd heacceptedhe ppoint-

ment.(11a) Smith nominated ones o standforelection, ut he declinedthe

nomination.

10








(I Ib) ??Smithppointed oneso the ommittee,uthe declined he ppoint-ment.

(I2a) ?Smith ried o nominate ones o stand or lection,utbe declinedhenomination.

(I2b) Smith ried o appointJones o thecommittee,ut he declined heappointment.

(I2a) wouldwork nlyf treferredobehind-the-scenesegotiationsrioroanyformalomination. otethat9b) implies hatJones ccepted he ppointment,but 9a) implies othing bout cceptance.9a) is unilateral,nless t s under-

stoodto be short or ioa). But,for he nondirectiveenseof appoint',9b)is mplicitlyilateral which sto saythat he xtra lause n lob) goeswithoutsaying; ence hedoubtfulrammaticality.iob) may lso eemdoubtfulecauseofcontaminationythedirectiveenseof appoint'.

Thisfine istinction aynotmakemuch ifference,t eastfor hebusiness thand.The importantoint s thatperfectedominatingnominating et byacceptance) ndnondirectiveppointingreboth ooperativepeech cts.

Searledoesnotacknowledgehis.He classesappointingndnominatingsdeclarations,ndassumes hat hey reunilateraleclarations.is paradigmaticdeclarationsre I resign',You'refired',I excommunicateou', I christenhis

ship, hebattleship issouri',I appoint ouchairman',nd War is declared'.

If I successfullyerformhe actofappointing ouchairman,henyou arechairman;f successfullyerformhe act ofnominatingouas candidate,thenyou re a candidate; f successfullyerformhe ct ofdeclaring stateofwar, henwar son; if successfullyerformhe ct ofmarryingou, henyou remarriedSearle976: 13).

Nowresigningsa unilateraleclaration.o isfiring.utnondirectiveppointingisnotunilateral. or sperfectedominating.t takes wotomake nappoint-ment r

a Iasting omination.f appointings a declarationt is a cooperativedeclaration.Searle s alsowrongo classmarryings a declaration. e takes heoperative

utteranceo be, I nowpronounce ouman nd wife' Searle 976: 20). But thispronouncementythe elebrantmerelymakes ublic heexistencefa contract- a marriageontract thathasalready eenenacted y thebride ndgroom ntheir xchange f vows. The marriage s concludedonce the partieshaveexchangedheir owsand any ubsequent ronouncementythecelebrantsin confirmationf whatthepartieshavealready oneratherhan heconfer-mentupon themby thecelebrant f the statusof husband nd wife' Law

Commission963: 53, citingtwo courtdecisions).According o the NewCatholic ncyclopediahecelebrants a 'witness' othemarriage,newho s not'exercisingomepowers-ofrders r urisdiction'Loftus 967: 278-9). See also

II







MICHAEL HANCHER

Martinich 975: 407.) Marriage snot, ikechristening, simpledeclaration; t sa bilateralcontract, ndertaken n special circumstances nd in the presence ofspecial witnesses.

To summarize:manyimportantperformativepeech acts are not, as Searlewould have it, simpledeclarations. ome, likeofferingndnondirective ppoint-ing, are commissivedirectives that is, precooperative peech acts. Others arecooperativespeech acts- cooperativedeclarations,as in the case of gifts,orcooperativecommissives, s in the case ofbilateralcontracts.15

It is necessaryhere to distinguish ooperativepeech acts frombothmultiplespeech acts and collective peech acts. If two persons simultaneouslypledgeallegiance to the flag, there are two differentpeech acts under way herecalled 'multiple' speech acts. If one personspeakson another'sbehalf as well ason his own (e.g., 'We accept yourinvitation'),or iftwo persons sign the sameletter, hespeech act is a 'collective' one. 'Multiple' speech actscomprise wo ormore simultaneous and identical first-person-singulartterances; 'collective'speechactscompriseone or morefirst-person-pluraltterancesifmore than oneutterance, hen simultaneous nd identicalones). There aremultiple peechactswhen a congregation ings a hymnor says a prayerthat is cast, explicitly rimplicity, n the firstpersonsingular; thereis a collectivespeech act when it

singsa hymnor says a prayer ast in the first ersonplural. In all of these casesthe fact that there is more than one speaker does not matterto the natureof thespeech actbeingperformed, hether t be pledging, sserting, etitioning,or whatever.But when two or morepersonsoin in a cooperative peechact,suchas contracting r voting,the factthat there is more than one speaker is notaccidental but essentialto theverynature of the act.

If a private poll reports hat58% of those polled would like to see smokingbanned in restaurants, hat poll reportsand summarizesmultiplespeech acts(multiple representatives).But if, in a binding city referendum, he samepercentagevote nfavor f such a ban, thevotesconstitute cooperative peech

act: a cooperativedeclaration, stablishing new law.It is also necessaryto distinguishreciprocal ooperative speech acts from

[Is] Vendler's discussion of 'operatives' his name for declarations betrays an un-certainty hattends to support his nalysis.His definition f an operative s succinct ndstrict: in issuing an operative say something nd the social, ritual,or legal effect psodicto takes place'. But he hesitates s he lists typicaloperatives:

Arrest, entence, ondemn, ine, and appeal in the legal sphere; baptize, confirm,rdain,absolve, excommunicate,nd canonize in the religious, knight n the feudal domain;perhaps also offer, ive, grant, surrender, ccept, refuse, nd reject, s well as greet,salute, and welcome Vendler 1972: 22).

The hesitation 'perhaps') is appropriate.Though surrender,ccept,refuse, nd reect aresimple declarations,offer nd give (and grant in the sense of give) are not; offer s acommissivedirective, nd give is a cooperativedeclaration. And of course greet, alute,and welcome re expressives,not declarations.)

12








integrativeooperativepeechacts,for wo differentindsofcooperationrepossible. lectings an integrativeooperativepeechact; thecooperativects(votes) reall parallel, nd of the ame ort, nd theresultingeclarations anintegrationf them ll. In reciprocalooperativepeechactsthecomponentacts can be of the same sort as in contracts,made up of an exchange fpromises),uttheywillbe intersectingcts,notparallel; nepromisenswersto anddependsuponthe other.Or thecomponentctsmaybe of a differentsort, s inagift, here nacceptance eets ndreciprocatesn implied ffer,operfecthegift.

To takeall theseargumentsntoaccount, earle'sclassificationhouldberevised long hese ines:

I. representativessingular,multiple,ndcollective)2. directivessingular,multiple,ndcollective)3. commissives

a. singular,multiple,ndcollectiveommissivesb. cooperativeommissivese.g.,contracts,ovenants, arriages,irings,

bets)4. commissive irectivessingular,multiple, nd collective;e.g., offers,

invitations,mperfectominations)

5. expressivessingular,multiple,ndcollective)6. declarations

6.o (ordinary)eclarationsa. singular,multiple,ndcollective eclarationsb. cooperativeeclarations

i. integrativeooperativeeclarationse.g.,elections)ii. reciprocal ooperative eclarationse.g., gifts, ales, appoint-

ments, erfectedominations)6.i representativeeclarations

a. singularepresentativeeclarationse.g.,decisionsy singleudge

orumpire)b. integrativeooperativeepresentativeeclarationse.g., Supreme

Courtdecisions)

The distinctionsntroducedn categories, 2, 5, and perhaps .i areminorcomparedo those ntroducedn 3,4, and6.o.The mostmportantnnovationsaretherecognitionfcategory, commissiveirectivesprecooperativepeechacts), ndtherecognitionfcategoryb,cooperativeommissivesanimportantset ofcooperativepeech cts).

REFERENCESAustin,J. L. (I962). How todo thingswithwords.Cambridge,Mass.: HarvardUniversity

Press. (Reprinted 965. New York: Oxford University ress.)

13







MICHAEL HANCHER

Ballentine,J. A. (I969). Ballentine's aw dictionary. ochester,N.Y.: LawyersCo-opera-tive PublishingCo.

Black, H. C. (I968). Black's law dictionary. t. Paul, Minn.: West PublishingCo.Campbell, B. C. (1975). Toward a workable taxonomyof illocutionary orces,and its

implication o works of imaginative iterature. anguageand Style 8. 3-20.

Carroll,L. (1971). Alice in Wonderland,d. D. J. Gray. New York: Norton.Corbin, A. L. (I963). Corbin on contracts, . I. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co.Fraser, B. (1974a). An analysis of vernacularperformative erbs. In R. W. Shuy and

C.-J. N. Bailey (eds), Towards tomorrow'singuistics.Washington: Georgetown Uni-versityPress. 139-58.-(1974b). Review ofJ.Searle, Speechacts. Foundation f Language II. 433-46.

(i975a). Hedged performatives.n P. Cole and 3. L. Morgan (eds), Speech acts.(Syntax and semantics, .) New York: Academic Press. I87-210.

(I975b). Warning and threatening. entrum , i69-8o.Garvey,C. (X975). Requests and responses n children's peech.Journal fChildLanguage

2. 41-63.

Kiser, D. J. (ed.) (I943). Corpus uris secundum, 8. New York: AmericanLaw Book Co.Law Commission (1973). Reporton solemnization f marriage n England and Wales.

London: Her Majesty's StationeryOffice.Loftus,W. A. (1976). Form ofmarriage. In New CatholicEncyclopedia,9. New York:

McGraw-Hill. 276-80.

McCawley, J. D. (I977). Remarks on the lexicographyof performative erbs. InA. Rogers, B. Wall, and J. P. Murphy (eds), Proceedings f the Texas conferencenperformatives,resuppositions,nd implicatures.Arlington,Va.: Center for AppliedLinguistics. 13-25.

Martinich,A. P. (1975). Sacramentsand speech acts, II. HeythropJ7.6. 405-I7.

Ohmann,R. (1972). Instrumental tyle:Notes on thetheory fspeech as action. n B. B.Kachru and H. F. W. Stahlke (eds), Current rends n stylisticsPapers in linguistics:Monograph eries, ). Edmonton,Ill.: LinguisticResearch. xI5-4I.

Robert,H. M. (1970). Robert'srulesofordernewly evised.New York: Scott,Foresman.Samek, R. (I965). Performative tterances nd theconceptofcontract.AustralasianJ.of

Phil. 43. I96-2I0.

Searle, 3. R. (I969). Speech acts: An essay in thephilosophy f language.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity ress.

(1975). A taxonomy f llocutionarycts. In K. Gunderson ed.), Language,mind, ndknowledgeMinnesota tudies n thephilosophyfscience ). Minneapolis: University fMinnesota Press 344-69.

(1976). A classification f illocutionarycts. LinS 5. 1-23.

(1977). A classification f illocutionary cts. In A. H. Rogers,B. Wall, and J. P.

Murphy (eds), Proceedings f theTexas conferencenperformatives,resuppositions,ndimplicatures. rlington,Va.: Center forApplied Linguistics.27-45.Vendler, . (197oa). Les performatifsn perspective.angageso. 17. 73-90.

(197ob). Say whatyou think. n J.L. Cowan (ed.), Studiesin thoughtnd language.Tucson: University fArizona Press. 79-97.

(I 972). Res cogitans: n essay n rational sychology.thaca: CornellUniversity ress.

14

searle 1.pdf

Documents