Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:42:52.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“On Indirect Speech Acts and Linguistic Communication: A Response to Bertolet”1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2009

Mary Kate McGowan ,
Shan Shan Tam  and
Margaret Hall
Mary Kate McGowan
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Shan Shan Tam
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Margaret Hall
Affiliation:
Wellesley College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Suppose a diner says, ‘Can you pass the salt?’ Although her utterance is literally a question (about the physical abilities of the addressee), most would take it as a request (that the addressee pass the salt). In such a case, the request is performed indirectly by way of directly asking a question. Accordingly this utterance is known as an indirect speech act. On the standard account of such speech acts, a single utterance constitutes two distinct speech acts. On this account then, ‘Can you pass the salt?’ is both a question and a request. In a provocative essay, Rod Bertolet argues that there are no indirect speech acts. According to Bertolet, ‘Can you pass the salt?’ is only a question. It is a question that merely functions as a request (without also being one). In this paper we respond to Bertolet's skeptical argument. Appealing to Searle's theory of speech acts and to certain features of linguistic communication, we argue that, despite Bertolet's challenge, there is good reason to countenance indirect speech acts.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy , Volume 84 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 495 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Bertolet, Rod, ‘Are There Indirect Speech Acts?’, in Foundations of Speech Act Theory, (ed.) Tsohatzidis, Savas (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 335–349Google Scholar.

3 Austin, John, How To Do Things With Words, (ed.) Urmson, J.O. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962)Google Scholar.

4 Lycan, William, Logical Form in Natural Language (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1984), 174Google Scholar.

5 Searle, John, 1979. ‘Indirect Speech Acts’ in Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Gordon, D. and Lackoff, G., ‘Conversational Postulate’, in Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 Speech Acts, (eds.) Cole, P. and Morgan, J.L. (New York: Academic Press, 1975), 94–100Google Scholar.

7 Op. cit., note 4, 182.

8 We say ‘non-authoritatively’ in order to distinguish requests from orders.

9 Op. cit., n. 2, 339.

10 Ibid., 339.

11 Cf. n. 8.

12 As Grice has argued, these communicative intentions are complex. Suppose I pretend to be rich in order to get Sally to believe that I am rich. If she recognizes that intention, then my behavior is unlikely to generate the desired result (i.e. that Sally believe that I am rich). With communication, by contrast, the relevant (communicative) intention is recognized and the speaker intends for the addressee to recognize that intention. See Grice, , ‘Meaning’, in Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 218Google Scholar.

13 Searle, John, ‘What is a Speech Act?’ in Philosophy in America, (ed.) Black, M., (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1965), 229–230Google Scholar.

14 Cf. n. 8.

15 Such as Clark, H., Using Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Op. cit., note 5, 31.

17 Searle, JohnSpeech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Grice, H. Paul, ‘Logic and Conversation’ in Studies in the Way of Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989), 22–40Google Scholar.

19 We here closely follow Searle's own reconstruction in Op. cit., note 5, 34–35.

20 Op. cit., note 5, 49.

21 Ibid., 46–47.

22 Op. cit., note 2, 345–346.

23 Bach, K. and Harnish, R.. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1979), 199Google Scholar.

24 Searle, John, ‘Speech Acts and Recent Linguistics’ in Expression and Meaning (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), 166–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar.