Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 21–55 | Cite as

Hereby explained: an event-based account of performative utterances

Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

Several authors propose that performative speech acts are self-guaranteeing due to their self-referential nature (Searle 1989; Jary 2007). The present paper offers an analysis of self-referentiality in terms of truth conditional semantics, making use of Davidsonian events. I propose that hereby can denote the ongoing act of information transfer (more mundanely, the utterance) which thereby enters the meaning of the sentence. The analysis will be extended to cover self-referential sentences without the adverb hereby. While self-referentiality can be integrated in ordinary truth conditional semantic analysis without being a mystery, the resulting account shows that self-referentiality in this sense is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for performative utterances. I propose that the second ingredient of performative utterances consists in an act of the speaker defining her utterance to be an act of the respective kind. The final theory can successfully predict the performativity, or lack thereof, of a wide range of performative sentences, and leads to an explicated interface between compositional sentence meaning and speech act.

Keywords

Truth conditional semantics Event semantics Speech acts Performative utterances 

References

  1. Astington, J. (1988). Children’s understanding of the speech act of promising. Journal of Child Language, 15, 57–173.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L. 1955 [1962]. In J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà (Eds.), How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon (1962).Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K., & Harnish, R. M. (1992). How performatives really work: A reply to Searle. Linguistics and Philosophy, 15, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaver, D., & Condoravdi, C. (2007). On the logic of verbal modification. In M. Aloni, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of 16th AC (pp. 3–10). University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, P. (1996). Intention, history, and artifact concepts. Cognition, 60(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bloom, P. (1998). Theories of artifact categorization. Cognition, 66(1), 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Champollion, L. (2010). Parts of a whole. PhD dissertation, Stanford.Google Scholar
  9. Condoravdi, C., & Lauer, S. (2010). Speaking of preferences. Imperative and desiderative assertions in context. Extended handout, Lichtenberg Kolleg Göttingen, June 2010 (available on author’s homepage).Google Scholar
  10. Condoravdi, C., & Lauer, S. (2011). Performative verbs and performative acts. Talk presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 15, September 9–11, 2010, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. Handout available at authors’ homepages.Google Scholar
  11. Copley, B. A. (2002). The semantics of the future. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. (1980). The logical form of action sentences. In D. Davidson (Ed.), Essays on actions and events (pp. 105–122). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  13. Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Eckardt, R. (2009). Easy linking logic. In M. Aloni, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Amsterdam colloquium 2009 (pp. 247–257). Extended version available at Semantics Archive.Google Scholar
  15. Eckardt, R. (2011). Hands up imperatives. In I. Reich (Ed.), Proceedings of SuB 15 (2010), Saarbrücken (pp. 209–223).Google Scholar
  16. Fodor, J. D., & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy, 5, 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Jary, M. (2007). Are explicit performatives assertions? Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 207–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kaufmann, M. (2011). Interpreting imperatives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H.-J. Eikemeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts (pp. 38–74). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Kratzer, A. (1998). Scope or pseudo-scope? Are there wide-scope indefinites? In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events in grammar (pp. 163–196). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kratzer, A. (2003/in prog.). The event argument and the semantics of verbs. Semantics Archive.Google Scholar
  25. Landman, F. (2000). Events and plurality. The Jerusalem lectures. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Matthewson, L. (1999). On the interpretation of wide scope indefinites. Natural Language Semantics, 7, 79–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Parsons, T. (1991). Events in the semantics of English. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Portner, P. (2005). The semantics of imperatives within a theory of clause types. In Proceedings of SALT XIV. New York: CLC Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Portner, P. (2007). Imperatives and modals. Natural Language Semantics, 15, 351–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reichenbach, H. (1966). Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Reinhart, T. (1997). Quantifier scope: How labor is divided between QR and choice functions. Linguistics and Philosophy, 20, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schwager, M. (2006/t.a.). Interpreting imperatives. Doctoral dissertation, University of Frankfurt/Main. With revisions, under contract with Springer (series: Studies in linguistics and philosophy).Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Searle, J. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(3), 535–558.Google Scholar
  35. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Szabolsci, A. (1982). Model theoretic semantics of performatives. In F. Kiefer (Ed.), Hungarian linguistics (pp. 515–536). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  38. Tomasello. (2007). Why Apes don’t point. In R. Eckardt, et al. (Eds.), Variation, selection, development. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  39. Truckenbrodt, H. (2009). Performatives and agreement. Ms, Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
  40. Vanderveken, D. (1990). Meaning and speech acts. Volume I: Principles of language use. Volume II: Formal semantics of success and satisfaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. von Fintel, K., & Heim, I. (2007). Intensional semantics. Online lecture notes, MIT. Accessed March 2012 from http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/s08/semantics2/vonfintel+heim07.pdf.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations