OK, welcome.
Now we're going to talk about a very interesting subject called Speech Acts, and this whole section
is very much influenced on from John Searle, which is, as I already said, one of my heroes.
He wrote a very good book called Speech Acts in 1969 already, actually.
But he's been thinking about this area.
He wasn't the one who actually coined the term speech act.
So that was coined a little bit earlier in the 30s, I think, or 20s.
But he's he's working along with it and he's actually working still a lot about it.
And he also wrote another book just to three, almost 2010, Making The Social World, which I also
highly recommend.
And I will touch upon some of the materials regarding speech acts here.
So what our speech acts and how do they tie into the other parts we've talked about, they are the utterances,
real intended meaning.
So I hinted at this already in the last section when we talked about sentence meaning.
So there is something very important called sentence meaning, but that is not sufficient to account
for all the meaning we experience when we're talking.
So here, we'll try to dive into that a little bit and see how that works.
So the insufficient sentence meaning is quite obvious in many situation if you just think about it a
little bit more deeply.
So have this very funny example, I think here there's a normal amount of background and that is presupposed
when we communicate.
So the background that we talked about in the other lecture, when we talk about the network intentionality
and its background, there is always an underlying background of things that we just presuppose to be
able to communicate at all.
So let's take this silly example, maybe about two guys start talking to each other.
So one is saying, let's go out for a drink.
The second one is replying, sorry, I can't my doctor won't allow me.
And the first one that says, what's the matter with you having a real concern for the for the second
person here?
So what's the matter?
Are you really is a bad aren't you allowed to drink at all?
Aren't you allowed to go out?
And what's the problem?
Can I help you?
And then just let's change one very simple thing here.
So let's change one word and we'll see how the meaning differs.
So the first person again saying, let's go out for a drink.
But the second person now replies, Sorry, I can't, my mother in law won't allow me, and then the
third person again says, Dad was mad at me.
So we made this subtle difference.
Of course, it could be a case where the mother in law and the doctor is the same person.
But let's say that that's not the case here.
So we made this subtle difference in the second and still the whole meaning of the last, at least the
last sentence here is very different because the first intended meaning was that I have a real concern
for you.
What's the matter with you?
This was a request about how illicit to hear more about that marista.
The last sentence here is more like what kind of a sissy are you letting your mother in law boss you
around like this?
Right.
So we completely change the meaning of this subtle difference.
And even if it's just two rules we're talking about.
And and the reason for that is that we have this huge background knowledge that we are referring to
when we are communicating and that we presuppose that that background knowledge is something that we
share.
That's the frame that we are communicating within.
We cannot spell out all that brain because that will not be important and it will be impossible to actually
communicate.
So this is also related to the term into diplomacy, the translation.
The main problem that we talk about is so one are speed checked.
So intentionality is a natural extension.
So we think about this from an evolutionary point of view.
Then we have intentionality before we started to speak, probably because there's a lot of animals probably
having intentionality.
But then we wanted to extend that and we wanted to start to communicate we needed.
So we started inventing language.
And then it was a very natural it's very natural to think that that the intentional states were expressed
something and they're equal in part in language would be speech act.
So intentionally states leads to speech acts.
So we have this intentional state up in our mind and then we're saying something and there's some type
of relation between them.
And that's what we're going to talk about here.
But the interesting thing is that since they are probably have evolved in that way, the risks very
much a parallelism in how they are structured.
So they are parallel in form.
So we have form of us, of an intentional state where we said that an intentional state s includes a
proposition Proposition P and was a state that has brackets P.
So in the same way, actually that translates to speech acts as saying that the speech act has an evolutionary
force is a strange word.
But so we have a force.
That is how we express the force by which we are expressing our sentence and the force also a proposition.
So the speech that has set forth and the proposition, we can also be to note that as F Brackett's pief.
So if I have an intentional state, this pass to me, that's my eternal proposition and I have a desire
about this, then I could express that as a speech act.
Please hand me the salt, which is then a speech act of the form of a request and also have a proposition.
So I have both the sentence, meaning in Please Hand Me the Salt and I have a request part, which is
the force by which I'm saying.