Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

Hello, Sai.

The definition you asked for is in Message Number 131646 dated May 28 2005.

Also look at Messages 131629 May 27 and 131935 June 11.

Here's message 131646 reproduced: right after it is Sai's message to which this is a reply.

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@Y...> wrote:
> --- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Tim May <butsuri@M...> wrote:
> > Forgive my ignorance - I don't know that much about pragmatics -
> but
> > it's not clear to me why felicity conditions are important with
> > respect to imperatives (as they clearly are with performatives
> like "I
> > now pronounce you...").  What consequences does it have,
> > linguistically, if a command is infelicitous in this sense?
>
> I Googled on "felicity conditions" and found out that, while Austin
> initially introduced the
> terms "locutionary", "illocutionary", "perlocutionary", "felicitous",
>  and "infelicitous" regarding performatives, Searle later not only
> created a taxonomy of illocutionary acts, but also systematized
> felicity conditions.
>
> Searle said felicity conditions were Preparatory, Propositional,
> Sincerity, or Essential conditions.
>
> Among illocutionary acts for which he gave felicity conditions was a
> request.
>
> Letting S stand for the Speaker, H stand for the Hearer (or rather
> the Addressee), and A stand for the Future Act; Searle's felicity
> conditions for a request were as follows.
>
> Preparatory:  H must be able to perform A.
> Propositional:  S predicates a future act A of H.
> Sincerity:  S wants H to perform A.
> Essential:  The utterance counts as an attempt by S to get H to do A.
>
> It is the Preparatory felicity condition which may be missing in
> some commands to adopt certain mental states.
>
> Does this answer your question, Tim?
>
> -----
>
> Tom H.C. in OK
Here's Sai's message this message is replying to.

--- In conlang@yahoogroups.com, Sai Emrys <saizai@g...> wrote:
> > My question is, though, is the command "felicitous" or "infelicitous"
> > in the sense of the technical definition of Searles (sp?) and Austin?
>
> Mind giving me a definition?
>
> I think you mean Searle - I get to have two (?) classes from him next
> year, whee. (Next semester, Philosophy of Mind; I think he may also do
> Scientific Approaches to Consciousness in the spring.) Haven't talked
> to him yet, though, so I don't know his definition. :-P
>
> > If I "read you a-right", you think, along with me, that it would
> > be "infelicitous" if the addressee was one of that "99.9%" who
> > are "core ball-grippers"; but it would be "felicitous", although
> > unethical, for addressees "with 'root access' ... to themselves".
>
> If my understanding that "felicitous" ~= "possible to implement", then yes.
>
> > (BTW if you managed to read the whole of the thread ere now, you saw
> > that I was quickly forced to back off from my original statement as
> > way-too-inclusive.  Imperative forms of "believe" are often
> > felicitous, as many examples were given to show; it is just "commands
> > to believe" that are in question.)
>
> I only saw the branch-off thread as my Gmail threaded it, from Tom
> Chappell's "back from Oaklahoma" posts.
>
>  - Sai

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com