Letteratura angloamericana

ORDER

1. The ordered act is a future act by B

2. B is able to perform the act; B has the obligation to do so

3. A genuinely believes that B should perform the act

4. The utterance counts as an attempt by A to oblige B to do an act

WARNING

1. It is about a future event

2. A believes that the event will occur and will be harmful to B; A

believes that it is not obvious to B that the event will occur

3. A genuinely believes that the event will be harmful to B

4. The utterance counts as an attempt by A to have B recognise that

a certain future event will be harmful to him/her

Habermas’ approach: validity claims

According to Habermas (1981), when speakers produce

speech acts they presuppose that the illocutions are valid,

that is, true, sincere and legitimate.

For example, if you say “I am the boss now” you

presuppose i) that it is true that you’re the boss; ii) that

you really mean it; iii) that you have the authority to

proclaim yourself the boss.

Therefore, an illocution is successful, i.e. it leads to the

intended illocution, only if the receiver acknowledges its

validity in terms of truth, sincerity and legitimacy.

Habermas’ approach: validity claims

Look at this example:

Teacher to student: Could you bring me a coffee?

In what cases may the illocution be unsuccessful? The

student may refuse the teacher’s request as invalid on the

basis of:

Truth, i.e. the teacher knows that I cannot do that.

Sincerity, i.e. the teacher does not really want any coffee.

Legitimacy, i.e. the teacher has not right to ask me that.

Illocutions in discourse

Often the utterance itself provides some indication of the

intended illocution. Most of the time, however, illocutions

are implicit.

In order to link the right illocution to a locution, one needs

to have sufficient knowledge of (a) the discourse

situation, (b) the relation between the participants, and (c)

the world.

Illocutions in discourse

Take a look at this example:

A: Can you stop by my office in a minute?

This interrogative possesses the illocutionary intent of a

request. However, it must be interpreted as an order

when it is uttered by a supervisor to a subordinate. This

requires knowledge of (a) and (b).