1. The verification theory of meaning proposes that the only meaningful propositions are ones that have a verifiable truth value. The fallacy occurs in assuming that all utterances are of a type that can be verified- that either a statement is true or false, or it possesses no cognitive meaning. However, there are statements, performative utterances for instance, that are examples of statements that cannot be verified and also possess meaning.
2. Austin's performative utterances are evaluated not on their verifiability (truth or falsity), but on their felicity (failure or success in performing). It is the evaluation of a statement on existing conventions and appropriate circumstances that allows us to determine whether a performative utterance is successful in allowing me to do what I intend. In saying that "I do take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife" I am not only expected to be at an alter, but I am also expected to be standing in front of a woman whom I intent on marrying; and with this statement I am not just saying something, but I also appear to be doing something, and it is this something (verbal performance) that seems to give insight into how sentences perform.
3. I'm interested in the idea of forces of utterances. I agree that an utterance may possess different implications depending on how it is spoken, but I'm wondering about what is required to determine these forces. When hearing a sentence, both tone or context are just two in which we can appraise whether something is an order, a warning, or something other. How complex does Austin anticipate the performance of utterances to be; does he anticipate tone and inflection to be a basic consideration of the function of language?
No comments:
Post a Comment