WEBVTT 00:10.720 --> 00:11.650 OK, welcome. 00:13.090 --> 00:18.670 Now we're going to talk about a very interesting subject called Speech Acts, and this whole section 00:18.670 --> 00:25.420 is very much influenced on from John Searle, which is, as I already said, one of my heroes. 00:25.840 --> 00:31.870 He wrote a very good book called Speech Acts in 1969 already, actually. 00:32.260 --> 00:34.700 But he's been thinking about this area. 00:35.110 --> 00:37.800 He wasn't the one who actually coined the term speech act. 00:37.810 --> 00:42.160 So that was coined a little bit earlier in the 30s, I think, or 20s. 00:43.270 --> 00:47.220 But he's he's working along with it and he's actually working still a lot about it. 00:47.230 --> 00:55.870 And he also wrote another book just to three, almost 2010, Making The Social World, which I also 00:55.870 --> 00:56.860 highly recommend. 00:57.220 --> 01:02.140 And I will touch upon some of the materials regarding speech acts here. 01:04.130 --> 01:12.920 So what our speech acts and how do they tie into the other parts we've talked about, they are the utterances, 01:12.920 --> 01:14.220 real intended meaning. 01:14.780 --> 01:19.790 So I hinted at this already in the last section when we talked about sentence meaning. 01:19.820 --> 01:25.310 So there is something very important called sentence meaning, but that is not sufficient to account 01:25.310 --> 01:29.900 for all the meaning we experience when we're talking. 01:31.820 --> 01:35.730 So here, we'll try to dive into that a little bit and see how that works. 01:36.770 --> 01:45.290 So the insufficient sentence meaning is quite obvious in many situation if you just think about it a 01:45.290 --> 01:46.640 little bit more deeply. 01:48.030 --> 01:55.380 So have this very funny example, I think here there's a normal amount of background and that is presupposed 01:55.380 --> 01:56.520 when we communicate. 01:56.530 --> 02:01.800 So the background that we talked about in the other lecture, when we talk about the network intentionality 02:01.800 --> 02:09.690 and its background, there is always an underlying background of things that we just presuppose to be 02:09.690 --> 02:10.990 able to communicate at all. 02:11.730 --> 02:16.500 So let's take this silly example, maybe about two guys start talking to each other. 02:16.560 --> 02:18.840 So one is saying, let's go out for a drink. 02:19.470 --> 02:23.790 The second one is replying, sorry, I can't my doctor won't allow me. 02:24.090 --> 02:30.870 And the first one that says, what's the matter with you having a real concern for the for the second 02:30.870 --> 02:31.440 person here? 02:32.760 --> 02:33.780 So what's the matter? 02:33.830 --> 02:38.740 Are you really is a bad aren't you allowed to drink at all? 02:38.790 --> 02:40.140 Aren't you allowed to go out? 02:40.290 --> 02:41.220 And what's the problem? 02:41.250 --> 02:41.820 Can I help you? 02:42.990 --> 02:46.650 And then just let's change one very simple thing here. 02:46.660 --> 02:52.060 So let's change one word and we'll see how the meaning differs. 02:52.590 --> 02:55.140 So the first person again saying, let's go out for a drink. 02:56.440 --> 03:03.220 But the second person now replies, Sorry, I can't, my mother in law won't allow me, and then the 03:03.220 --> 03:06.590 third person again says, Dad was mad at me. 03:07.510 --> 03:10.050 So we made this subtle difference. 03:10.060 --> 03:13.150 Of course, it could be a case where the mother in law and the doctor is the same person. 03:13.870 --> 03:15.970 But let's say that that's not the case here. 03:17.590 --> 03:24.130 So we made this subtle difference in the second and still the whole meaning of the last, at least the 03:24.130 --> 03:30.700 last sentence here is very different because the first intended meaning was that I have a real concern 03:30.700 --> 03:31.180 for you. 03:31.180 --> 03:32.220 What's the matter with you? 03:32.240 --> 03:38.940 This was a request about how illicit to hear more about that marista. 03:39.280 --> 03:44.620 The last sentence here is more like what kind of a sissy are you letting your mother in law boss you 03:44.620 --> 03:45.400 around like this? 03:45.430 --> 03:45.820 Right. 03:46.570 --> 03:50.470 So we completely change the meaning of this subtle difference. 03:51.700 --> 03:53.860 And even if it's just two rules we're talking about. 03:53.860 --> 04:00.850 And and the reason for that is that we have this huge background knowledge that we are referring to 04:01.000 --> 04:07.060 when we are communicating and that we presuppose that that background knowledge is something that we 04:07.060 --> 04:07.430 share. 04:07.600 --> 04:10.560 That's the frame that we are communicating within. 04:11.410 --> 04:17.380 We cannot spell out all that brain because that will not be important and it will be impossible to actually 04:17.380 --> 04:18.040 communicate. 04:21.190 --> 04:24.550 So this is also related to the term into diplomacy, the translation. 04:24.960 --> 04:30.700 The main problem that we talk about is so one are speed checked. 04:32.770 --> 04:35.040 So intentionality is a natural extension. 04:35.320 --> 04:38.080 So we think about this from an evolutionary point of view. 04:38.470 --> 04:45.220 Then we have intentionality before we started to speak, probably because there's a lot of animals probably 04:45.220 --> 04:46.540 having intentionality. 04:47.410 --> 04:53.620 But then we wanted to extend that and we wanted to start to communicate we needed. 04:53.650 --> 04:55.360 So we started inventing language. 04:55.540 --> 05:00.700 And then it was a very natural it's very natural to think that that the intentional states were expressed 05:00.830 --> 05:05.470 something and they're equal in part in language would be speech act. 05:05.650 --> 05:08.240 So intentionally states leads to speech acts. 05:09.550 --> 05:15.190 So we have this intentional state up in our mind and then we're saying something and there's some type 05:15.190 --> 05:16.420 of relation between them. 05:16.420 --> 05:18.480 And that's what we're going to talk about here. 05:19.360 --> 05:25.660 But the interesting thing is that since they are probably have evolved in that way, the risks very 05:25.660 --> 05:28.600 much a parallelism in how they are structured. 05:28.720 --> 05:30.520 So they are parallel in form. 05:32.950 --> 05:43.300 So we have form of us, of an intentional state where we said that an intentional state s includes a 05:43.300 --> 05:48.690 proposition Proposition P and was a state that has brackets P. 05:48.880 --> 05:56.380 So in the same way, actually that translates to speech acts as saying that the speech act has an evolutionary 05:56.380 --> 05:57.820 force is a strange word. 05:57.820 --> 06:01.630 But so we have a force. 06:01.630 --> 06:09.900 That is how we express the force by which we are expressing our sentence and the force also a proposition. 06:10.300 --> 06:15.640 So the speech that has set forth and the proposition, we can also be to note that as F Brackett's pief. 06:17.240 --> 06:23.720 So if I have an intentional state, this pass to me, that's my eternal proposition and I have a desire 06:23.720 --> 06:26.510 about this, then I could express that as a speech act. 06:26.510 --> 06:33.560 Please hand me the salt, which is then a speech act of the form of a request and also have a proposition. 06:34.340 --> 06:39.530 So I have both the sentence, meaning in Please Hand Me the Salt and I have a request part, which is 06:39.530 --> 06:41.000 the force by which I'm saying.