Re: Words that are just speech acts

Sai Emrys, On 24/10/2006 21:59:
> On 10/24/06, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
>> Other clear examples are HELLO, GOODBYE, SORRY, THANKS/TA, CHEERS,
>> CINCIN, BLESSYOU.
>
> Define "cincin"?
>
>> But some would argue that there are many other less obvious cases,
>> such as WELL and NEVERTHELESS, and some, such as BUT, that have
>> elements of both truthconditional and 'performative' meaning.
>
> Would the above ones (hello, yes/no, etc) count as "performative"? It
> seems a bit odd to call them that, to me.
Yes -- they perform acts of greeting, affirmation etc.

> Likewise "dog" doesn't seem either truthconditional or performative.
> Nor "blue" or "clearly".
These contribute to propositional (truthconditional) meaning; they combine with
other words to form phrases that express propositional meaning.

>> In Livagian, ordinary predicates systematically have performative
>> counterparts. For example, alongside the predicates "tell" and
>> "regret" there are performatives meaning "I hereby tell you that p"
>> and "I hereby express regret that p". So the idea that performative
>> lexis is fundamentally different strikes me as on the wrong track.
>
> To a certain extent NLF2DWS is a way of writing (diagramming?) ideas.
> Performatives or pure "speech acts" would thus probably need to be
> treated somewhat specially IMO, since there is not necessarily an
> assumed context that the text is merely transcribing actual speech, so
> the meta (like this) should be treated explicitly.
I don't see why NLF2DWS should be different from ordinary one-dimensional speech
in this respect. Both are ways of expressing ideas. In both systems I'd expect
the basic unit of what is expressed to be the speech act (which may have
propositional content).

How do you envisage NLF2DWS handling imperatives and interrogatives?

--And.

Reply