Apologies if this has been discussed before (I gave up in disgust on the "search" function after waiting several minutes for it to load):
Today a friend declined to answer a question I'd posed until I rephrased it in such a manner so as not to have the question imply a premise which [she insisted ] was not true. Of course, being the linguaphiles that we are, the discussion was halted while we searched our minds for the [rhetorical?] term describing this phenomenon. The only thing we could come up with was illocutionary... but is there a more specific term for [intentionally or unintentionally] lacing one's question with an implication disguised as a logical premise?
And while we're on the topic, what's the etymology of 'illocutionary'? Since 'allocute' is basically 'to speak', does the 'il-' prefix form the negative connotation?
*precisely* the structure i was attempting to describe. DOG? i've plenty of slobber and hyperactivity in my household already, and that's not even counting my squadron of toddlers.
what's the etymology of 'illocutionary'? Since 'allocute' is basically 'to speak', does the 'il-' prefix form the negative connotation?
nope. it's the assimilated form in L. of the prefix 'in-', meaning in/on/into/upon; so an illocution is (in philosophical terms) an act such as ordering, warning, undertaking, performed in saying something.
"To perform a locutionary act is in general... also and eo ipso to perform an illocutionary act, as I propose to call it." -J.L. Austin, How to do Things with Words
(not to be confused with 'perlocution', an act such as persuading or convincing, that may or may not be successfully achieved by an illocutionary act such as entreating or arguing.)
You might also look up a discussion held, at length, on the Board a few months ago relating to "begging the question". I'm sure that discussion wandered in and out of this one.
I'd have LIUed it for you, but the whole Board is so slow to load that I'm afraid that I'd die of old age before I could find it.
and that's not even counting my squadron of toddlers.
BTW, what it the venereal term for toddlers in a group? of is such a term waiting to be invented? Perhaps "a squaldron of toddlers"?
(running off to check An Exaltation of Larks; will edit this to note anything found there.) EDIT: nothing found there; the closest was "a caper of kids". We have perhaps a tabula rasa, but certainly a open season for our creativity.
it has been pointed out that I somehow missed an illocution:"Have you stopped beating your dog yet?" is NOT an illocution? Did I get that right? [how could this have happened?] rhetorical question
the answer is, yes, the quoted question is not an illocution in the manner in which illocution is defined philosophically and in speech theory. I xrefer you to the following: http://www.xrefer.com/entry/571772
while in theory a loaded question may have illocutionary force (I ain't no speech theoretician), an illocution is *not a loaded question, from my reading of it.
Thanks, tsuwm. Now I have another question (yes, me--imagine that): here is a partial quote from Xrefer.the illocutionary act is that of uttering it as a request; the perlocutionary act is what is accomplished by uttering it (e.g. the addressee might ignore the request, or might in fact help). Would it be at all accurate to describe an illocutionary act as "cause", and a perlocutionary one as "effect"?
<<Would it be at all accurate to describe an illocutionary act as "cause", and a perlocutionary one as "effect"?
Off the cuff, at least one notable difference might be that the perlocutionary is an interpretive condition established by the illocutionary act wherein *either an action or non-action would function as the cognate of the effect in a cause and effect relationship. The very fact that non-action is then specified as *a **determinate non-action would be a definitive part of that condition. The occurrence or non-occurrence of the requested action, then, would not be the effect, the space in which that occurrence might be interpreted--which space is opened as a requirement of the illocutionary--might, however, be considered as the effect of the illocutionary. We would be talking, then, of cause and effect in the realm of the interpretation of speech acts. But that's just a guess.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
] was not true. Of course, being the linguaphiles that we are, the discussion was halted while we searched our minds for the [rhetorical?] term describing this phenomenon. The only thing we could come up with was illocutionary... but is there a more specific term for [intentionally or unintentionally] lacing one's question with an implication disguised as a logical premise?
