DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Political Intelligibility and the Performative Force of Assembly DISSERTATION Submitted in Part

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Political Intelligibility and the Performative Force of Assembly DISSERTATION Submitted in Part UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Political Intelligibility and the Performative Force of Assembly DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Political Science by Stacey Liou Dissertation Committee: Professor Kevin Olson, Chair Professor Simone Chambers Associate Professor Keith Topper © 2020 Stacey Liou DEDICATION To Ryan sine non qua ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii VITA vi ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION vii INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1 How Materiality Matters 21 CHAPTER 2 Collectivity as Performative Force 51 CHAPTER 3 Publicity and the Disorders of Desire 93 CHAPTER 4 Affect and Horizons of Concern 128 CONCLUSION 164 BIBLIOGRAPHY 170 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been waiting a long time for this opportunity to acknowledge the generosity, guidance and company of friends, colleagues and family. A life spent between books and screen can be lonely, and I’m lucky that you all have made it richer and more rewarding for your presence. My first thanks are to Kevin Olson, Simone Chambers and Keith Topper. Kevin, Simone and Keith have challenged me to think coherently, precisely and creatively, and my intellectual development results in no small part from their tireless efforts in this regard. They model a form of scholarship committed to thoughtful, lively and fun conversation, and I only hope to follow the examples they have set. Special thanks to Kevin Olson, whose faith in my abilities as a scholar has kept me going in uncertain times. He has championed me throughout this process while always allowing me my intellectual freedom. I thank also Daniel Brunstetter, Louis DeSipio, Bernie Grofman, Heidi Hardt, Jeffrey Kopstein, Erin Lockwood, Mary McThomas, Walter Nicholls, Davin Phoenix, Michael Tesler, Samantha Vortherms and Carole Uhlaner, who in different ways have pressed and supported me in my time here. Claudia Cheffs, Tomas Figueroa, Andrew Hallak and Liz Nguyen do the daily work that makes this life possible, and they do so with smiles and cool heads. Thank you also to David Blaney, J. J. Rodriguez and Sonita Sarker, who from the beginning encouraged me to ask critical questions and sit with the discomfort of questions unanswered. Because virtue calls, too, for cakes and ale, let me thank Hannah Alarian, Semassa Boko, John Emery, Ben Hoyt, Mary Anne Mendoza, Robert Nyenhuis, Graham Odell, Kevin Pham and Anna Setyaeva. I am especially grateful for the friendship of Maneesh Arora, Pernilla Johansson, Hannah Kim and Chungjae Lee, whose company and laughter have sustained me. iv Grad school couldn’t have been half as enjoyable without our easy conversations, from DTF to walks around Aldrich. Thank you to May Liou, whose energy and strength are paralleled only by the sacrifices she has made for me to be able to choose this life; and to Connie and Caroline Liou, whose curiosity, playfulness and boundless reinvention inspire me to keep learning and exploring. I am also grateful for Patti and Tom Sauchelli, who have embraced me without reservation. And, thank you to Abi, whose trust and uncomplicated love remain with me. My most profound thanks go to Ryan Sauchelli. Ryan’s steady love and companionship, his humor, patience and open mind, continue to carry me through my highs and lows. Life with you will never grow old. v VITA Stacey Liou ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS 2020 - Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Florida EDUCATION 2010 B.A., Macalester College Political Science and Women’s, Gender & Sexuality Studies 2017 M.A., University of California, Irvine Political Science 2020 Ph.D., University of California, Irvine Political Science FIELD OF STUDY Political Theory PUBLICATIONS Chungjae Lee and Stacey Liou, “Inverted Founding: Emperor Organ Theory, Constitutionalism, and Koku-min,” European Journal of Political Theory. doi: 10.1177/1474885119882835. Stacey Liou, “Unspoken Insurgencies: Interpretive Publics in Contentious Politics,” Political Theory vol. 45, no. 3 (2017): 342-361. Pernilla Johansson and Stacey Liou, “Public Spheres on the Move: The Embodied Deliberation of Cycling in Los Angeles,” Space & Polity vol. 21, no. 1 (2017): 59-74. vi ABSTRACT Intelligibility and the Performative Force of Assembly by Stacey Liou Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Irvine, 2020 Professor Kevin Olson, Chair This study examines the conditions of political intelligibility for popular assembly. What are the normative constraints by which some forms of public gathering can appear politically intelligible while others cannot? I investigate this question by conceptualizing what I call the force of assembly. I argue that there is no essential form of political assembly. Instead, a politically intelligible assembly is a performative effect of gathering under and according to compulsory norms whose intersecting logics operate materially, collectively and affectively; these are the logics by which public meanings about assembly are created. An assembly’s political intelligibility rests on its perceived compliance with these compulsory norms. Materially, people on the streets may make political claims, but the conditions of their embodied presence in public space shape the gathering’s political intelligibility, embodying public meanings that exceed discursive articulation. Collectively, a gathering associated with a collective identity appears to be the work of an intelligible political actor. Affectively, the moods, emotions and feelings connected with an assembly can enable or obscure its political intelligibility. However, materially, collectively and affectively generated meanings do not vii result solely from the actions of those gathered on the streets. An assembly’s performative force also depends integrally upon public audiences attending to and interpreting it. I advance this theoretical argument by analyzing two instances of public gathering in contemporary Los Angeles history, one for many audiences politically intelligible and the other not: the 1994 anti- Proposition 187 march to City Hall and the 1992 Uprising / Riots. This study seeks to contribute to radical democratic theories of collective political action, offering a more complex and empirically grounded account of the multidimensional channels by which moments of collective political action can carry normative force as political assemblies. My hope is that examining the conditions of possibility for intelligible popular action can illuminate the contingencies of our social meanings and practices and contribute to a world where different forms of worldmaking can flourish. viii INTRODUCTION There is no reality without interpretation; just as there is no innocent eye, there is no innocent ear. – E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground! – Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations Take the following scene from the afternoon of April 29, 1992.1 At a liquor store at the corner of Florence and Dalton Avenues in South Central Los Angeles, a group of five young men grabs a few bottles of beer and moves to leave without paying.2 One of them strikes the shopkeeper over the head with a bottle: “This is for Rodney King!” Just an hour earlier, four officers from the Los Angeles Police Department were acquitted on all charges of using excessive force in their savage beating of Black motorist Rodney King.3 1 The following account is drawn from various sources, including “25 Years after the L.A. Riots: An Oral History,” LA Weekly, April 26, 2017; Lou Cannon, Official Negligence: How Rodney King and the Riots Changed Los Angeles and the LAPD (New York: Random House); Timothy Goldman, “Los Angeles Riots (Part I of V),” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8L1jcl0K70, accessed May 3, 2018; Angel Jennings and Matt Hamilton, “At the corner of Florence and Normandie, marking causes of L.A. riots,” Los Angeles Times, April 25, 2017; Penelope McMillan, “Riot Aftermath: After First Moments, Cameraman Lost Empathy With Rioters,” Los Angeles Times, May 6, 1992; Sylvester Monroe, “Burn, baby, burn: What I saw as a black journalist covering the L.A. riots 25 years ago,” Washington Post, April 28, 2017; David Whitman, “The Untold Story of the LA Riot,” U.S. News, May 23, 1993. 2 South Central is a geographically large area of Los Angeles that does not correspond exactly with today’s formal municipal boundaries (e.g., city district lines or census tracts). Though the Los Angeles City Council in 2003 voted to rename this neighborhood South Los Angeles, at the time of the events it was commonly referred to as South Central (Los Angeles). Because the events described here occurred before this change, I retain the language of South Central. 3 I capitalize Black because it denotes a cultural identity. Joel Olson writes that white is strictly a political category while Black is a political category as well as a cultural identity, so “the two terms are not symmetrical.” Joel Olson, The Abolition of White Democracy (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004), xix. This capitalization has acquired broader popular currency following the New York 1 One block east of the liquor store, a young man swings a baseball bat at the windshield of a Cadillac and gives chase. Police officers arrest him on a nearby residential street as a crowd assembles around them; some begin chanting, “Rodney King, Rodney King, Rodney King” as a TV crew arrives. As similar encounters and arrests are made in the neighborhood, an estimated 100-200 people gather on streets and sidewalks to watch, many shouting, yelling at and cursing the police officers and some beginning to throw rocks and other objects at them. When officers are ordered to return to the local precinct station, some of those gathered follow them through the intersection of Florence and Normandie Avenues and people begin to hurl bricks, bottles, a phone booth directory, a stand-up Marlboro sign, at passing drivers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Cross-Cultural and Pragmatic Study of Felicity Conditions in the Same-Sex Marriage Discourse
    Journal of Foreign Languages, Cultures and Civilizations June 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 58-72 ISSN 2333-5882 (Print) 2333-5890 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jflcc.v4n1a7 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jflcc.v4n1a7 A Cross-Cultural and Pragmatic Study of Felicity Conditions in the Same-Sex Marriage Discourse Hashim Aliwy Mohammed Al-Husseini1 & Ghayth K. Shaker Al-Shaibani2 Abstract This paper investigates whether there are Felicity Conditions (FCs) for the same-sex marriage as being a contemporary practice of marriage relations in some countries. As such, the researchers adopt Austin’s (1962) Felicity Conditions (FCs) to examine if conditions of satisfaction are applicable to the same-sex marriage in Christian and Islamic cultures. The researchers focus on analysing and discussing the social, religious, and linguistic conventional procedures of the speech acts of marriage, specifically in the same-sex marriage discourse. We find out that same-sex marriage in Christianity is totally different from the traditional marriage with regard to the social, religious, and linguistic conventions. Consequently, we concluded that same-sex marriage discourse has no FCs in contrast to the traditional marriage in Christianity as well as marriage in Islam which has not changed in form and opposite sex marriage. Keyword: Felicity Conditions; homosexual relations; marriage speech acts; same-sex marriage discourse; conventional procedures 1. Introduction Trosborg (2010, p.3) stated that one can principally affirm that all pragmatic aspects, namely speech act theory and theory of politeness, may be liable to cross-cultural comparisons between two speech communities and/or two cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Performative Speech Act Verbs in Present Day English
    PERFORMATIVE SPEECH ACT VERBS IN PRESENT DAY ENGLISH ELENA LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ Universidad Complutense de Madrid RESUMEN. En esta contribución se estudian los actos performativos y su influencia en el inglés de hoy en día. A partir de las teorías de J. L. Austin, entre otros autores, se desarrolla un panorama de esta orientación de la filosofía del lenguaje de Austin. PALABRAS CLAVE. Actos performativos, enunciado performativo, inglés. ABSTRACT. This paper focuses on performative speech act verbs in present day English. Reading the theories of J. L. Austin, among others,. With the basis of authors as J. L. Austin, this paper develops a brief landscape about this orientation of Austin’s linguistic philosophy. KEY WORDS. Performative speech act verbs, performative utterance, English. 1. INTRODUCCIÓN 1.1. HISTORICAL THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1.1. The beginnings: J.L. Austin The origin of performative speech acts as we know them today dates back to the William James Lectures, the linguistic-philosophical theories devised and delivered by J.L. Austin at Harvard University in 1955, and collected into a series of lectures entitled How to do things with words, posthumously published in 1962. Austin was one of the most influential philosophers of his time. In these lectures, he provided a thorough exploration of performative speech acts, which was an extremely innovative area of study in those days. In the following pages, Austin’s main ideas (together with some comments by other authors) will be presented. 1.1.1.1. Constative – performative distinction In these lectures, Austin begins by making a clear distinction between constative and performative utterances.
    [Show full text]
  • Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground
    Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 40 | 2016 Exclamation et intersubjectivité Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground Franz d’Avis Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rsp/279 DOI: 10.4000/rsp.279 ISSN: 2610-4377 Publisher Presses universitaires d'Orléans Printed version Date of publication: 1 March 2017 Number of pages: 17-34 ISSN: 1285-4093 Electronic reference Franz d’Avis, « Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground », Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique [Online], 40 | 2016, Online since 01 March 2018, connection on 10 December 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rsp/279 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rsp.279 Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique. 2016. Numéro 40. pp. 17-34. Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground Franz d’Avis Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz 1. INTRODUCTION The starting point for the search for exclamative sentence types in a lan- guage is often the description of a certain function that utterances of sentences of that type would have. One formulation could be: With the use of an excla- mative sentence, a speaker expresses that the state of affairs described by a proposition given in the sentence is not in accordance with his expectations about the world.1 Exclamative utterances may include an emotional attitude on the part of the speaker, which is often described as surprise in the literature, cf. Altmann (1987, 1993a), Michaelis/Lambrecht (1996), d’Avis (2001), Michaelis (2001), Roguska (2008) and others. Surprise is an attitude that is based on the belief that something unexpected is the case, see from a psychological point of view Reisenzein (2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Felicity Conditions for Counterfactual Conditionals Containing Proper
    Counterfactuals in Context: Felicity conditions for counterfactual conditionals containing proper names William Robinson A thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Washington 2013 Committee: Toshiyuki Ogihara Barbara Citko Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Linguistics 2 ©Copyright 2013 William Robinson 3 University of Washington Abstract Counterfactuals in Context: Felicity conditions for counterfactual conditionals containing proper names William Robinson Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Toshiyuki Ogihara PhD Linguistics Linguistics This thesis provides felicity conditions for counterfactual conditionals containing proper names in which essential changes to an individual are counterfactually posited using contrastive focus in either the antecedent or consequent clause. The felicity conditions proposed are an adaptation of Heim’s (1992) CCP Semantics into Kratzer’s (1981) truth conditions for counterfactual conditionals in which the partition function f(w) serves as the local context of evaluation for the antecedent clause, while the set of worlds characterized by the antecedent serves as the local context for the consequent clause. In order for the felicity conditions to generate the right results, it is shown that they must be couched in a rigid designator/essentialist framework inspired by Kripke (1980). This correctly predicts that consequents containing rigid designators are infelicitous when their input context—the set of worlds accessible from the antecedent clause— does not contain a suitable referent. 4 Introduction We use counterfactual conditionals like (1a-b) to make claims about the “ways things could have been,” not about the way things actually are1 (Lewis 1973, p.84). The antecedent clause of a counterfactual conditional posits a change to the actual world from which the consequent clause would/might follow.
    [Show full text]
  • 324 10 2 Pragmatics I New Shorter
    Speaker’s Meaning, Speech Acts, Topic and Focus, Questions Read: Portner: 24-25,190-198 LING 324 1 Sentence vs. Utterance • Sentence: a unit of language that is syntactically well-formed and can stand alone in discourse as an autonomous linguistic unit, and has a compositionally derived meaning: – A sentence consists of a subject and a predicate: S NP VP. – [[ [NP VP] ]]M,g = 1 iff [[NP]]M,g ∈ [[VP]]M,g • Utterance: The occurrence (use) of a sentence (or possibly smaller constituent that can stand alone) at a given time. • Bill: Sue is coming. Jane: Yes, Sue is coming. – Two utterances of the same sentence. Same meaning. • Bill: “I am tired.” Jane: “ I am tired, too” – Two utterances of the same sentence. Two different meanings. • Semantics studies the meaning of sentences; pragmatics studies the meaning of utterances. LING 324 2 Semantic Meaning vs. Speaker Meaning • A: Most of the people here seem pretty glum. • B: Not everybody. The man drinking champagne is happy. • A: Where? • B: That guy! (pointing) • A: He’s not drinking champagne. He’s drinking sparkling water. The only person drinking champagne is crying on the couch. See? • B: Well, what I meant was that the first guy is happy. [c.f. Donnellan 1966, Kripke 1977] LING 324 3 • The semantic (or expression) meaning of a sentence (or a smaller constituent) is its literal meaning, based on what the words individually mean and the grammar of the language. • The speaker’s meaning of a sentence is what the speaker intends to communicate by uttering it. • These often coincide, but can diverge.
    [Show full text]
  • Constructional Meaning and Compositionality
    Constructional Meaning and Compositionality Paul Kay International Computer Science Institute and Department of Linguistics University of California, Berkeley 5 Laura A. Michaelis Department of Linguistics and Institute of Cognitive Science University of Colorado Boulder Contents 10 1. Constructions and compositionality 2. Continuum of idiomaticity 3. Kinds of constructional meanings 4. Model-theoretic and truth-conditional meaning 5. Argument structure 15 6. Metalinguistic constructions 7. Less commonly recognized illocutionary forces 8. Conventional implicature, or pragmatic presupposition 9. Information flow 10. Conclusion 20 11. References Abstract One of the major motivations for constructional approaches to grammar is that a given rule of syntactic formation can sometimes, in fact often, be associated with more than one semantic 25 specification. For example, a pair of expressions like purple plum and alleged thief call on different rules of semantic combination. The first involves something closely related to intersection of sets: a purple plum is a member of the set of purple things and a member of the set of plums. But an alleged thief is not a member of the intersection of the set of thieves and the set of alleged things. Indeed, that intersection is empty, since only a proposition 30 can be alleged and a thief, whether by deed or attribution, is never a proposition. This chapter describes the various ways meanings may be assembled in a construction-based grammar. 1. Constructions and compositionality 35 It is sometimes supposed that constructional approaches are opposed to compositional semantics. This happens to be an incorrect supposition, but it is instructive to consider why it exists.
    [Show full text]
  • Japanese Modality
    Japanese modality - Possibility and necessity: prioritizing, epistemic, and dynamic Magdalena Kaufmann and Sanae Tamura Preliminary draft of chapter 13 for The Handbook of Japanese Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Wesley Jacobsen and Yukinori Takubo; Moulton de Gruyter. Version: Jan 30, 2017. Comments most welcome to [email protected] or santamura@gmailcom. Please don’t cite without checking for newer versions. 1 Introducing ‘modality’ One of the most fascinating properties that set apart human languages from other systems of com- munication is their sheer unlimited capacity to abstract away from the actual situation, generally referred to as displacement. Displacement along the temporal dimension allows speakers to talk about circumstances and events obtaining at different times and to relate them to their actual now (see Chapter III.2). Displacement along the modal dimension allows speakers to talk about circum- stances and events that need not be part of the actual course of events at all. For this, languages use content words (like belief or seek), morphological marking (like the Romance subjunctives), func- tional words (like the English modal auxiliaries), as well as complex constructions. ‘Modality’ can then be defined as the category of grammatical devices that serve to express displacement along the modal dimension. In the following, we will build on this understanding to present an overview over the relevant expressions and constructions in contemporary Japanese. While relatively standard in current formal semantic theories (cf. Portner 2009, Hacquard 2011), our understanding of modality is largely orthogonal to the tradition in Japanese linguistics and func- tional or cognitive approaches in Western linguistics (see Larm 2006; Narrog 2012 for recent overviews in English).
    [Show full text]
  • Semantics Versus Pragmatics
    Linguistics 103: Language Structure and Verbal Art Pragmatics and Speech Act Theory Semantics versus Pragmatics semantics: branch of linguistics concerned with the meanings of propositions pragmatics: branch of linguistics concerned with • the use and function of language; • the relation between the structural properties of an utterance and its deployment and reception by language users Traditionally, meaning has been studied by examining those sentences which express propositions which have a truth-value. (1) Snow is white. The cat is on the mat. Semantics is concerned with the conditions under which the proposition expressed by a sentence is true. These are said to be its truth-conditions. (2) ‘Snow is white’ is True if and only if snow is white. ‘The cat is on the mat’ is True iff the cat is on the mat. object language: language in which sentences subject to study are expressed metalanguage: language in which the truth-conditions of the proposition expressed by the sentence are expressed (3) ‘Schnee ist weiss’ is True if and only if snow is white. ‘La neige est blanche’ is True if and only if snow is white. The study of the truth-conditions of propositions has a long history in linguistics and logic. One way to talk about truth-conditions is to imagine an inifinite number of ‘possible worlds’ where different states-of-affairs hold true. A (true-false) proposition picks out the set of worlds in which the proposition is true. This way of conceptualizing meaning then permits certain logical relations to be defined mathematically in terms of set theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Austin's Speech Act Theory and the Speech Situation
    Austin’s Speech Act Theory and the Speech Situation Etsuko Oishi Esercizi Filosofici 1, 2006, pp. 1-14 ISSN 1970-0164 link: http://www.univ.trieste.it/~eserfilo/art106/oishi106.pdf AUSTIN’S SPEECH ACT THEORY AND THE SPEECH SITUATION Etsuko Oishi The talk starts with a question, why do we discuss Austin now? While answer- ing the question, I will (I) present an interpretation of Austin’s speech act theory, (II) discuss speech act theory after Austin, and (III) extend Austin’s speech act theory by developing the concept of the speech situation. And in the following section, three aspects of the speech situation, that is, (I) conventionality, (II) actuality, and (II) intentionality, will be explained. Then a short conclusion fol- lows. 1. Why do we discuss Austin now? Half a century ago, John Austin gave a series of lectures, the William James Lectures at Harvard, which were published posthumously as a book entitled How to Do Things with Words. Austin presented a new picture of analysing meaning; meaning is described in a relation among linguistic conventions corre- lated with words/sentences, the situation where the speaker actually says some- thing to the hearer, and associated intentions of the speaker. The idea that meaning exists among these relations is depicted successfully by the concept of acts: in uttering a sentence, that is, in utilizing linguistic conventions, the speaker with an associated intention performs a linguistic act to the hearer. Austin’s analysis of meaning is unique in the sense that meaning is not ex- plained through some forms of reduction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Unified Account of the Semantics of Discourse Particles
    A unified account of the semantics of discourse particles Markus Egg Humboldt-Universitat¨ Berlin [email protected] Abstract This relation is described by the features KNOWN and CORRECTION in Thurmair (1989), The paper investigates discourse particles i.e., doch-utterances correct a previous utterance on the example of German doch, assigning by introducing old information. Karagjosova to them very specific semantic interpreta- (2004) regards doch-utterances act as reminders, tions that still cover a wide range of their which present old information to hearers. Ac- uses. cording to Konig¨ and Requardt (1997), doch- The analysis highlights the role of dis- utterances point out inconsistencies between old course particles in managing the common information and a new piece of information or ac- ground and crucially takes into account tion. that discourse particles can refer not only Such general descriptions of doch apply to cases to utterances they are a part of and to previ- like Karagjosova’s (1): B reminds A of Peter’s ously uttered utterances, but also to felicity illness, which seems inconsistent with A’s an- conditions of these utterances. nouncement and therefore can act as a correction of A: 1 Introduction (1)A: Peter wird auch mitkommen. B: Er ist This paper advocates very specific semantic in- doch krank. terpretations for discourse particles, concentrating ‘A: Peter will come along, too. B: But he is on German doch. There is a very wide range of ill.’ concrete usages of discourse particles in context While these general descriptions (excepting (which has motivated analysing them as polyse- Karagjosova (2004)) do not spell out in detail the mous, e.g., in Helbig (1988)).
    [Show full text]
  • Speech Acts, Criteria and Intentions
    Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 6.1 (2010): 145-170 DOI: 10.2478/v10016-010-0008-8 Jesús Navarro-Reyes ∗ University of Seville SPEECH ACTS , CRITERIA AND INTENTIONS Abstract What makes a speech act a speech act? Which are its necessary and sufficient conditions? I claim in this paper that we cannot find an answer to those questions in Austin’s doctrine of the infelicities, since some infelicities take place in fully committing speech acts, whereas others prevent the utterance from being considered as a speech act at all. With this qualification in mind, I argue against the idea that intentions—considered as mental states accomplishing a causal role in the performance of the act— should be considered among the necessary conditions of speech acts. I would thus like to deny a merely ‘symptomatic’ account of intentions, according to which we could never make anything but fallible hypotheses about the effective occurrence of any speech act. I propose an alternative ‘criterial’ account of the role of intentions in speech acts theory, and analyse Austin’s and Searle’s approaches in the light of this Wittgensteinian concept. Whether we consider, with Austin, that speech acts ‘imply’ mental states or, with Searle, that they ‘express’ them, we could only make sense of this idea if we considered utterances as criteria for intentions, and not as alleged behavioural effects of hidden mental causes. Keywords: speech act theory, intention, speech action, Moore’s paradox ∗ Departamento de Metafísica y Corrientes Actuales de la Filosofía Universidad de Sevilla C/ Camilo José Cela, s/n. 41018, Sevilla, Spain E-mail: [email protected] Jesús Navarro-Reyes 146 Speech Acts, Criteria and Intentions 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Essays on the Semantics of Modality
    ESSAYS ON THE SEMANTICS OF MODALITY by ZACHARY JOHN MILLER A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Philosophy Written under the direction of Professor Anthony Gillies And approved by —————————————— —————————————— —————————————— —————————————— New Brunswick, New Jersey OCTOBER, 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Essays on the Semantics of Modality by ZACHARY MILLER Dissertation Director: Professor Anthony Gillies This is a dissertation on the semantics of modality and related topics. Each of the three chapters takes aim one of the most widely held assumptions concerning the seman- tics of modality. The assumption is criticized, and a replacement is developed to take its place. In the first chapter I take up the idea that permission should be semantically ana- lyzed as existential quantification over possibilities. I argue that we should instead adopt an analysis involving universal quantification. The di↵erence between permission and obli- gation is not one of quantificational strength, but rather one of quantificational structure. I conclude by considering how these arguments might be generalized to every flavor of modality. In the second chapter I continue with the topic of modal flavors, and I ask how we should di↵erentiate these flavors. The traditional approach to flavor di↵erentiation locates all flavor di↵erences in the modal semantics: modal claims di↵er in flavor because they di↵er in meaning. I argue against this approach. I argue that the vast majority of flavor di↵erences are not semantic di↵erences.
    [Show full text]