Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?

From:Tom Chappell <tomhchappell@...>
Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 17:29
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, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@Y...> wrote:
> --- In, 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, 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