Illocutionary Force defined
Illocutionary force | Gerry Munzing | February 4th, 2004
Hello everyone out there,
I thought I might try to spark some discussion since the discussion list seems to be rather quiet lately.
I'm reading through some books on Discourse Analysis, waiting for IIC to arrive, and I'm starting to come up against some basic linguistic terms that I think I understand... I guess, this is kind of like when a student learns new vocabulary, it's a good idea to talk about it with others before feeling comfortable enough to use it on one's own.
I've done some searching on Google and that's been helpful, but would anyone care to take a stab at giving an example of or describing what "illocutionary force" means?
Thanks in advance for your response(s),
Gerry Munzing
Re: Illocutionary force | Jerry Talandis Jr. | February 4th, 2004
Hello Gerry,
This is Jerry. I'm about to start IIC myself. I have no idea what "illocutionary force" means, but I was wondering: how do you define it? You mentioned that you've done some searching about; can you put into words what you think it means?
Jerry
Re: Illocutionary force | Sharell | February 4th, 2004
This is a couple of things I found:
1) Definition: Illocutionary force is the combination of
* the illocutionary point of an utterance, and
* the
particular presuppositions and attitudes that must accompany that point,
including the
o strength of the
illocutionary point
o preparatory conditions
o propositional content
conditions
o mode of achievement
o sincerity conditions,
and
o strength of sincerity
conditions.
Examples (English)
Illocutionary force distinguishes the following types of acts:
* Asserting
* Promising
* Excommunicating
* Exclaiming in pain
* Inquiring
* Ordering
See also
* What is the identity of illocutionary forces?
Crystal 1980, Searle and Vanderveken 1985
2) Illocutionary force
SEMANTICS: the status of an utterance as a question, promise, threat, etc. This term should not be confused with illocutionary act, which is a speech act, expressing the intention of the speaker. EXAMPLE: the sentence Do you know what time it is? is uttered with the illocutionary force of a yes-no question, but uttering it is an illocutionary act of a request: it would be improper to answer with a simple 'yes'.
Hope this helps,
Sharell
Japan
Re: Illocutionary force | Gerry Munzing | February 4th, 2004
Hi Jerry,
I've scanned over the beginning of an article I found on-line, by Mitchell S. Green with the title "Illocutionary Force and Semantic Content" and this is what I can glean about the meaning of the term.
It sounds like illocutionary force causes someone to do something, or to react, rather than simply state information. It's sounds like it's an utterance that begs to combine with another. Green writes, "a proposition is itself communicatively inert; for instance, merely expressing the proposition that snow is white is not to make a move in a 'language game'. Rather, such moves are only made by putting forth a proposition with an illocutionary force such as assertion, conjecture, command, etc."
Green also makes an analogy to chemistry, comparing "radicals" and "functional groups". He writes, "In chemical parlance, a radical is a group of atoms normally incapable of independent existence, whereas a functional group is the grouping of those atoms in a compound that is responsible for certain of the compound's properties." In this way it seems that propositions are independent whereas illocutionary force leads to a response or pushes communication in a direction.
I really need to sit down and attempt to read the entire article. It's just not that easy to sum this stuff up in compact easy examples. There's a lot more going on than what I've tried to describe above. If anyone cares to elaborate, confirm or correct, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks,
Gerry
Re: I llocutionary force | Andy Boon | February 4th, 2004
There is the famous case in English law in which 2 youths were tried for the murder of a police officer (one of them not actually having the gun and being mentally challenged was sentenced to hang). In a retrial to clear the defendant's name, Sinclair (Birmingham Uni) testified to the illocutionary force of the statement "Let 'em have it". Did the defendant mean kill the police officer or let him have the gun?? It was decided that the defendant meant the latter statement and his name was cleared.
Andy Boon
Re: Illocutionary force | Joe Alvaro | February 4th, 2004
'I am thirsty' may not only be a comment about the speaker's physical condition. He may be asking for a glass of water. The illocutionary force is the effect the speaker wants his utterance to have on the listener. (Richards, J, et al.1992)
When I encounter words or concepts that I just don't get, I turn to my trusty set of dictionary/encyclopedias. They have proven indispensable in helping me grasp concepts that don't make much sense. Here are 4 very helpful reference books:
1) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics , by Richards, Platt & Platt;
2) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics: A Handbook for Language Teaching, Johnson & Johnson;
3) Routledge Dictionary of Language & Linguistics, by Bussmann;
4) The Cambridge Encyclopdia of Language (2nd Edition), by David Crystal.
I hope this helps.
Best wishes,
Joe Alvaro
(presently doing IIC in Guangzhou, China)
Re: Illocutionary force | Tom Bloor | February 5th, 2004
Dear Gerry and other interested parties,
You're right that it is difficult to pin down illocutionary force. You can only understand the notion by putting in a few study hours and reading the right books (see below). But briefly:
Illocutionary force is an important notion in pragmatics and usually comes under the heading of 'Speech Act Theory'. It is associated with the Oxford U. philosopher J.L. Austin (1911-1960). He distinguishes between what he calls an utterance's 'meaning' (by which he means its semantic load) and its 'illocutionary force', i.e. the 'work' it does or in his terms the 'sense' in which it is intended.
He starts off by discussing 'performatives' like 'I name this ship Venus'; 'I now pronounce you man and wife'; 'I declare this supermarket open'. These differ from ordinary statements like 'Life is tough'; 'John loves Mary' etc. For one thing, with the latter you can appropriately say, 'that's true' or 'That's false' but you can't sensibly say so about the performatives. Performatives actually perform an act (naming, marrying, etc.) rather than simply asserting that something is the case. You can say, 'It isn't fair' or 'He has no power to do that' but not 'It is
true/false'.
Then he goes on to point out that, less obviously, all utterances perform some kind of task - or are intended to do so. The utterance 'I have plenty of money', at one level (its semantics) simply states a fact about my financial situation. But pragmatically (i.e. depending on the context of the situation), it could constitute an offer, a promise, a threat, a boast, etc. These last categories are illocutionary. Terms like 'urge', 'encourage', 'promise', 'threaten', 'warn', 'order' refer to 'illocutionary acts' (aka 'speech acts' in later discussion). 'I'll give you the money' is probably a promise (that is its probable illocutionary force) and if I say 'I promise to give you the money', I make the illocutionary force explicit.
The American philosopher John Searle built on Austin's work by talking about direct and indirect speech acts. 'Lend me your car' is a direct request. 'I desperately need a loan of a car' is an indirect request (if uttered with that intention). Or it might be an indirect complaint or something else. It's usually possible to deny the illocutionary intent of an indirect speech act. 'Sure, I said I needed a car, but I wasn't asking for yours. I was just bitching.'
The reported story about the murder charge is not quite right. In the 1950s in London a not very bright 19-year-old called Bentley committed a burglary with a 17-year old friend, who had a gun. A policeman challenged them, saw the gun and asked the boy to hand it over. It was later claimed that Bentley said 'Let him have it.' This was later construed in court as an order to shoot the cop, and the boy did indeed kill him. Britain still had the death penalty in those far-off times, and Bentley, being of age - 18 or over, was hanged. Even at the time it was very controversial. His comrade, being under age, is still alive today, I believe. A few years ago, Bentley's surviving relatives finally got a retrial of the case. Malcolm Coulthard of Birmingham U., famous forensic linguist (and my friend and neighbor, lucky man), has argued that 'Let him have it' was at least as likely to mean 'hand over the gun' as 'shoot him' - and possibly more likely. But I can't remember off-hand whether he testified at the retrial or not. Anyway, the upshot of the retrial was a posthumous pardon, which was a bit late for poor Bentley. I have heard it said (I think by Malcolm C.) that Bentley didn't utter the words anyway, but that's how history goes. It's a good example of the importance of pragmatics (what an utterance means in a specific instance in a specific situation), but, I think, it is not precisely an illocutionary force problem because whether he was telling the boy to shoot the policeman or to give back the gun, it was a direct order (or suggestion or request).
There have been some great trials in USA of people charged with threatening the life of the President (various presidents); it is a separate crime in US law; distinct from threatening anybody else - understandably perhaps, given the number of successful or botched attempts throughout history. These often WERE arguments about illocutionary intent: was it intended as a 'threat' or a 'jest'; could it have been feasible and if not, how could it constitute a threat, etc. (The sort of issue that Austin and Searle address as 'felicity conditions'.) There is also 'perlocutionary effect', but you can find out about that for yourselves. I'm supposed to be retired and it's after 2 AM here.
Best wishes (speech act: valediction)
Thomas Bloor
Honorary Fellow
Aston University
Re: Illocutionary force | Robert Haines | February 5th, 2004
I've just typed out a very long reply to all your interesting comments that has been deleted by my infernal computer! Let's leave it at "Argh!" and move on to a much shorter version (I hope):
This medium seems to increase the possibility of misunderstanding exponentially, or maybe it just demands that we be more articulate. Either way, perhaps I was not clear in my query about linguistic concepts and their value in helping us with the people in the room (language learners).
Let me be clear in stating that I did not intend to question the value of metalanguage and jargon in expediting communication between ELT colleagues and carrying out web searches. That seems obvious to me. Like you, Tisa, I've discovered, after the fact, a technical term for something that happened in class, which only seems to speak for the way in which learning and effective pedagogy can happen without labels and jargon.
I also did not want to question whether familiarity with applied linguistics or linguistic concepts can increase or decrease teachers' confidence; I'm sure it can and has done so.
As far as an "aura of credibility" is concerned, Jerry, that might be something we as colleagues of Dave Willis can sense, but I'm not sure language learners would unless we were out to demonstrate our knowledge of linguistics, which I don't think you and I are or should be. I agree that "Motivated, engaged students do better and learn more."; however, I don't believe it takes linguistic knowledge to motivate and engage language learners. I think it requires a genuine interest in students' lives and a willingness to work with them as equals without coming across as "commanding and authoritative".
Mike, you've rightly stated that "...there are lots of ifs and buts...", a fact that could make some teachers less confident if they want to cling to pillars of knowledge. I could not agree more with you that "...much depends on the context, the students, the cultural background, the purpose of study, and so on." Still, isn't a teacher of five years more qualified to know these things than an Applied Linguistics major who's never set foot in this teacher's classroom and never met her students?
Common sense would tell me that the second example of interaction you've provided between teacher and student is more meaningful in terms of negotiating meaning. Wouldn't it be even more meaningful, motivating and engaging to address the issue of money when the student raises it out of personal interest, then deal with language as it arises? Well, perhaps that's a whole other can of worms.
Finally, Mike, I'm not sure which context you've pulled Widdowson's apt words out of, but you might want to also examine what he has to say on applied linguistics and linguistics applied (Widdowson, H. 2003. Defining Issues in Language Teaching. Oxford: OUP.)
My favorite teachers had never made an open display of their knowledge about pedagogy or any particular subject; they have always been kind, patient men and women who took a genuine interest in me and my learning. While they may have been quite versed in the jargon of their craft or science and felt equally confident because of their knowledge, it was, upon reflection, pedagogy, the art of teaching, that made them truly effective.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking discussion.
Best of luck to you all,
Rob
The evolving discussion | Gerry Munzing | February 5th, 2004
Greetings to all on a cold wintery day in Kyushu! Ah, even in southern Japan the wind coming off the Japan sea can have quite a nasty bite to it in Jan and Feb! If it's snowing where ever you are, I hope you are the type of person who enjoys it!
Having oiled the wheels with obligatory weather comments, I'd like to say that I'm truly impressed how a relatively innocent request for help has evolved into a rather stimulating discussion. As far as my two cents are worth on all of this, it appears that we have stumbled into something of a debate on the value of linguistic theory. If I may be so bold as to paraphrase Bilbo Baggins' birthday speech in the Fellowship of the Ring, I've read much less than half of what there is on teaching and linguistics and I've been able to understand half of that less than I would have liked. Therefore, I don't know if I'll be able to provide an example of the "more global and holistic approach to language analysis" that Robert is searching for.
However, if such an approach doesn't exist, then, I believe an important step towards creating it involves the process of "becoming theoretical" as described at the beginning of FND.
Diving into linguistics, or any academic field, can be very intimidating because it's easy to feel like there is an infinite amount of knowledge to digest. At least for myself, I doubt there's a way I'll ever be able to write a book or article and include enough references to appear credible. It's a case of the more I read, the more I realize there is even more to learn. In terms of the usefulness of the stuff and how it applies to our everyday practice, well, I'm rather confident that I will more than likely never do a workshop on illocutionary force and pragmatics with the teachers I train (and sadly so because personally I find this stuff fascinating!). I can easily imagine them rolling their eyes wondering, "What does any of this have to do with me and the students I teach?" Unfortunately, I believe this a general perception of theory in that it's something "out there" that is imposed on us rather than "in here" and concerned with what we actually do.
One of the reasons why I chose to do the MSc at Aston was because I got the impression the programme wasn't simply trying to promulgate the status quo of theory on top and practice somewhere down below. The crux of this matter is Action Research. I have just finished working through my first two modules after FND and I am starting to understand how the process of Action Research empowers practitioners by moving us towards gaining ownership of theory through observation and description of it in "action". In the first unit of MET, Steve asks us to consider what has become "unconscious" in our practice. By examining and rediscovering what has become routine, we, hopefully, become better teachers. In turn this should benefit our students because we, as teachers, stand to gain a deeper understanding of how to recognize and use theory in the context of applying it to our professional action. Thus, Action Research might be part of the "holistic" or "global" approach that brings together theory and practice.
As I mentioned previously, I'm just about to start IIC. In the first unit, which I read on-line, Keith defines the terms Investigating, Interaction, and Context. I doubt that I'll ever attempt to explain any of these, or for that matter what illocutionary force is, to the teachers I train. However, at least now I have a better understanding of the concepts and this helps me to better understand my research, which in turn fuels the investigations I conduct. I don't know what the end result will be, in fact right now I don't even know what my project will be about, but I'm looking forward to the exciting process of discovery that will take place when I examine what is going on in the classrooms I am responsible for.
BTW, yesterday, I purchased the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics, but even after having it at my disposal, I still think it's much more interesting to try and articulate in our own words what we think something means instead of passively receiving knowledge from a dictionary. Thanks to Jerry for asking me to do after my initial post. After all, for many of us, the e-mail list is the closest we'll get to having the kind of discussion which would normally take place in a classroom.
Thanks again to everyone for taking the time to articulate and send out your thoughts,
Gerry
Action research | Robert Haines | February 5th, 2004
Gerry,
I think you're right about action research being an essential part of becoming more theoretical, as Julian describes it in the FND.
I also like what you have to say about using our own words when possible to describe experience rather than quoting from books on the subject. That goes for language learners as well, doesn't it?
Cheers,
Rob
Re: let him have it (let 'em dangle) | Steve Mann | February 6th, 2004
Hi all,
Just to add something to Andy's posting. I used to do a lesson on capital punishment that involved a brilliant video of Elvis Costello positively spitting with rage into the camera (originally on Old Grey Whistle Test) and the lyrics are below. It's fairly self-explanatory except to know that Sidney Miles was the policeman who got shot.
Bentley said to Craig let him have it Chris
They still don't know today
just what he meant by this
Craig fired the pistol, but was too young to swing
So the police took Bentley
and the very next thing
Let him dangle
Let him dangle
Bentley had surrendered, he was under arrest,
When he gave Chris Craig
that fatal request
Craig shot Sidney Miles, he took Bentley's word
The prosecution claimed as
they charged them with murder
Let him dangle
Let him dangle
They say Derek Bentley was easily led
Well what's that to the woman that
Sidney Miles wed
Though guilty was the verdict, and Craig had shot him dead
The gallows were
for Bentley and still she never said
Let him dangle
Let him dangle
Well it's hard to imagine it's the times that have changed
When there's
a murder in the kitchen that is brutal and strange
If killing anybody is a
terrible crime
Why does this bloodthirsty chorus come round from time to time
Let him dangle
Not many people thought that Bentley would hang
But the word never came,
the phone never rang
Outside Wandsworth prison there was horror and hate
As the hangman shook Bentley's
hand to calculate his weight
Let him dangle
From a welfare state to society murder
Bring back the noose is always
heard
Whenever those swine are under attack
But it won't make you even
It won't bring him back
Let him dangle
Let him dangle (string him up)
Re: Illocutionary force | Colin | February 19th, 2004
Hi all
Following Rob's prompt about illocutionary force and a couple of comments he made:
I'd love to hear from you all on how an awareness of such concepts helps us work with the people (language learners) we meet with regularly as an essential part of our jobs. I mean to ask: Isn't it the whole of language rather than the analysis of its parts that makes it so dynamic and mysterious, ensuring it can never truly be "explained"?
I thought CPs might be interested in the following article which appeared in one of the English language papers here in Japan. It gives some idea about how you might incorporate the idea of illocutionary force, and also suggests that the 'micro' approach many language learners take (i.e. one word has one meaning) and feel that they need, should be replaced by a 'macro' approach (situation, context, etc.)
Being written for everyday people, it may help to clarify the density of Searle's/Austin's speech act descriptions.
Colin
\(^_^)/
Banzai!
Re: Illocutionary Force article | Jerry Talandis Jr. | February 19th, 2004
Thanks Colin, for that great article on illocutionary force for the masses. Now I can say I almost understand the concept! Like the author, I've also been asked many times what "yoroshiku onegaishimasu" means. I'm sure other CPs have similar experiences in their countries.
In his article, Guest suggests that teachers teach about illocutionary force get away from the one-to-one translation model of learning vocabulary, but he doesn't really get into specifics:
How can this problem be addressed in our classrooms? One way is for teachers to get away from the notion that all vocabulary has "meanings" and, further, that if we know the "meaning" of each part we will ultimately understand the meaning of the whole. Rather it should be emphasized that the social use of language involves first defining and clarifying situations and strategies that will determine which vocabulary and grammatical forms should be used.
Do any of you out there have any activities where you actually do something like this? Perhaps one idea could be to look at a sample dialog from a textbook and do some free-associating around it. It would help if there were a picture to go with it. Students could begin by talking about each character, filling in background info with their imaginations. They could even be provided with a list of questions about the picture such as "who is he/she?" What is he/she doing?" Etc. After getting a handle on the personalities involved and the situation, then the ss could pair off and perform the dialog, maybe even with added bits ad-libbed. Finally, the teacher could lead a discussion of key vocab. Perhaps different groups put different spins on the dialog, which could be pointed out. Anyway, something like that... I'm just brainstorming. Any other ideas out there for teaching illocutionary force in the classroom?
Anyway, it's all very interesting. I see my Japanese students depending heavily on these new slick little electronic dictionaries, but I wonder how much they help. Perhaps we need to put more emphasis on the context of conversations.
Jerry Talandis Jr.
Japan
Re: Illocutionary Force article | Mike McDonald | February 19th, 2004
Thanks Colin, for that great article on illocutionary force for the masses.
By an Aston graduate, no less.
Mike McDonald
Re: Illocutionary Force article | David Heywood | February 19th, 2004
I think one interesting way to get students to think about the meanings/forces behind utterances is 'innervoice'. This idea I first heard from Marc Helgeson and he often does presentations on it around Japan. The idea is briefly explained here.
You can take any old bland textbook dialogue and infuse it with meaning this way.
David
Re: Illocutionary force | Robert Haines | February 20th, 2004
As far as activities to develop an understanding of illocutionary force, do students have to think about this? I mean, how often had we thought about it before we started our MSc? We've done just fine so far with the language, haven't we? I managed to learn German without looking into illocutionary force as a concept.
What about using the everyday lives of the students (their interests and wants) to enliven the classroom. Instead of a text of conversation written by strangers/actors in a studio, wouldn't it exhibit much more illocutionary force to work with the language that emerges as part of the lesson?
Just thinking out loud about ways to make learning more meaningful, motivating and memorable without teaching primarily *about* language.
Rob
Re: teaching illocutionary force | Jerry Talandis Jr. | February 20th, 2004
Thanks David and Rob for your ideas about teaching illocutionary force in the classroom. That Helgesen article was helpful; it gave me some ideas. I think the reason it works is that it stimulates the imagination. It helps make dry, boring, impersonal textbook dialogs more relevant. Doing this type of activity could be good for those teachers who are "forced" to use a particular book. I know lots of folks working here in Japan at those commercial English schools have to deal with this situation. Perhaps an understanding of linguistic concepts like illocutionary force can help a teacher come up with more creative ways of teaching, helping them " make learning more meaningful, motivating and memorable without teaching primarily *about* language," as Rob says.
I don't think you have to make a point of naming any particular linguistic concept in class; those technical terms are created to explain phenomenon that occurs naturally, so I agree with Rob in that students don't need to consciously think about the technical name, but they should be able to understand that context plays a significant role in how words and phrases are used. Like Guest mentioned, it's important for students to get away from mechanical, mathematical approaches to learning vocabulary and conversation skills.
Jerry
Japan
with 
and 
