Advertisement

Erkenntnis

pp 1–23 | Cite as

Is that a Threat?

  • Henry Ian SchillerEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

I introduce game-theoretic models for threats to the discussion of threats in speech act theory. I first distinguish three categories of verbal threats: conditional threats, categorical threats, and covert threats. I establish that all categories of threats can be characterized in terms of an underlying conditional structure. I argue that the aim—or illocutionary point—of a threat is to change the conditions under which an agent makes decisions in a game. Threats are moves in a game that instantiate a subgame in which the addressee is ‘under threat’.

Keywords

Speech acts Pragmatics Illocutionary acts Threats Warnings 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to David Beaver, Josh Dever, and Hans Kamp for extensive feedback on several drafts of this paper. An earlier version of this paper was presented twice during a visit to the Arché Philosophical Research Centre in the summer of 2017. I would like to thank all of the participants at those presentations, in particular Derek Ball, Lisa Bastian, Josh Dever, Maegan Fairchild, Dan Healey, Poppy Mankowitz, Quentin Pharr, Ravi Thakral, Brian Weatherson, and Alex Yates for their questions, comments, and suggestions. I have also benefited from informal discussions of this paper with Simone Gubler, Megan Hyska, Amelia Kahn, Bronwyn Stippa, and Cassandra Woolwine, as well as from the feedback offered by several anonymous reviewers at Erkenntnis.

References

  1. Armstrong, J. (2016). The problem of lexical innovation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 39(2), 87–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L. (1963). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Camp, E. (2018). Insinuation, common ground, and the conversational record. In Daniel W. Harris, Daniel Fogal, & Matthew Moss (Eds.), New work on speech acts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Crane, P. T. (2006). True threats and the issue of intent. Virginia Law Review, 92(6), 1225–1277.Google Scholar
  5. Franke, M. (2013). Game theoretic pragmatics. Philosophy Compass, 8(3), 269–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fraser, B. (1998). Threatening revisited. Forensic Linguistics: International Journal for Speech, Language and Law, 5(2), 159–173.Google Scholar
  7. Fricker, E. (2012). Stating and insinuating. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 86(1), 61–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geurts, B. (2018). Convention and common ground. Mind and Language, 33(2), 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gintis, H. (2000). Game theory evolving. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Haldeman, H. R. (1978). The ends of power. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  11. Harris, D. W., Fogal, D., & Moss, M. (2018). Speech acts: The contemporary theoretical landscape. In D. W. Harris, D. Fogal, & M. Moss (Eds.), New work on speech acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haslanger, S. (2013). Social meaning and philosophical method. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 88, 16–37.Google Scholar
  13. Khoo, J. forthcoming. Code words in political discourse. Philosophical Topics .Google Scholar
  14. Klein, D. B., & O’Flaherty, B. (1993). A game-theoretic rendering of promises and threats. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 21, 295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22(4), 293–330.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis, D. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lewis, D. (1978). Prisoners dilemma is a newcomb problem. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8(3), 235–240.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. (1979). Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: Face revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McGowan, M. K. (2004). Conversational exercitives: Something else we do with our words. Linguistics and Philosophy, 27(1), 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGowan, M. K. (2009). Oppressive speech. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 87(3), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Pinker, S., Nowak, M., & Lee, J. (2008). The logic of indirect speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 833–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15(4), 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roberts, C. (2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(6), 1–69.  https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.Google Scholar
  26. Ross, D. (2016). Game theory. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/game-theory/: (Winter 2016 Edition).
  27. Saul, J. (2017). Racial figleaves, the shifting boundaries of the permissible, and the rise of Donald Trump. Philosophical Topics, 45(2), 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Saul, J. (2018). Dogwhistles, political manipulation and philosophy of language. In D. W. Harris, D. Fogal, & M. Moss (Eds.), New work on speech acts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schauer, F. (2003). Intentions, conventions, and the first amendment: The case of cross-burning. The Supreme Court Review, 2003, 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schelling, T. (1960/1980). The strategy of conflict, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society, 5(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shakespeare, W. (1604). The tragedy of Hamlet, prince of Denmark (second quarto edition). The complete works of William Shakespeare. http://shakespeare.mit.edu/hamlet/full.html.
  35. Skyrms, B. (2010). Signals: Evolution, learning, and information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stalnaker, R. (1996). Knowledge, belief and counterfactual reasoning in games. Economics and Philosophy, 12(2), 133–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stanley, J. (2015). How propaganda works. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Benthem, J. (2011). Logical dynamics of information and interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations