Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?
|From:||Tom Chappell <tomhchappell@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 17:29|
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 email@example.com, tomhchappell <tomhchappell@Y...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Tim May <butsuri@M...> wrote:
> > Forgive my ignorance - I don't know that much about pragmatics -
> > 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
> 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 email@example.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