Aretae

The virtue of excellence

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Speech as Action

New Era has a post I'd missed until a few days ago. Only just now am I remembering to link. Speech=action first, meaning 2nd. RTWT.
Posted by at

8 comments:

Alrenous said...

I don't understand your 1st vs 2nd split.

At what point does the meaning actually affect the conversation at all, assuming both parties are socially competent?

If the tester could perform the same act by saying "Green dreams sleep furiously," would the conversation go down any differently?

April 24, 2011 3:41 PM
Simo said...

Sometimes meaning is big part of the content, for example in a technical meeting.

Sometimes meaning is so unimportant that it doesn't matter if the sentence is true or untrue.

For example, on Easter I was raking grass. A relative walked by and said "you've got quite a lot done!" It was a successful encouraging speech act, but technically an untrue sentence: only a small fraction of the whole area had been raked.

Another example, in a neg on hair it doesn't matter if in fact the hair color is in style or not.

April 25, 2011 1:46 AM
Aretae said...

Simo,

True, but not so useful.
90+% (99+?), the meaning isn't important. It's just tech meetings and similar rare occurrences where meaning counts.

Alrenous,

Most conversations are at least multi-level, with multiple modules in play. There exist at least some conversations where truth/falsity will tip the balance from action1 to action2. Hence, I have 1st and 2nd.

April 25, 2011 9:56 AM
Alrenous said...

"It was a successful encouraging speech act, but technically an untrue sentence: only a small fraction of the whole area had been raked."

But isn't that just an acculturation issue? If you hadn't both been condition to respond badly to, say, "You've raked an encouragingly large area," they could have just said that instead.

"There exist at least some conversations where truth/falsity will tip the balance from action1 to action2."

Such as?

April 25, 2011 12:10 PM
Simo said...

> But isn't that just an acculturation
> issue? If you hadn't both been
> condition to respond badly to, say,
> "You've raked an encouragingly large
> area," they could have just said that instead.

"You've raked an encouragingly large area" is just as good.

This kind of talk is ritualized, the lines are invented quickly on the spot with little thought. A lot of slack is given as long as both parties identify what ritual is being performed.

> "There exist at least some
> conversations where truth/falsity
> will tip the balance from action1
> to action2."
>
> Such as?

Showing untrue accounting data is sometimes fraud, leading to criminal punishment.

April 25, 2011 2:52 PM
Alrenous said...

> Showing untrue accounting data is
> sometimes fraud, leading to
> criminal punishment.

In accounting, like the technical meeting, the first and second levels of meaning happen to coincide.

Is there ever a situation where the first level overrides the second?

Where, for example, someone tried to shit-test through accounting (somehow) and you could pass the test by not defrauding the account?

Is there a time when, "Actually, I haven't raked that much," doesn't mean, "I disdain your encouragement," but rather...I dunno, something useful?

April 25, 2011 5:27 PM
Aretae said...

Alrenous,

I haven't raked that much can be a modesty claim...you really oughtn't to raise me up like that. It can be a plea for help (It will take all week to finish). Others as well. But I think I'm confused about your question.

When talking with folks who are geeky enough, those folks will often adjust their statements until they are technically true...and prefer the technically true to the false but more useful.

When talking with ALMOST everyone else, I'd swear that meaning doesn't enter into the question AT ALL.

But I'm just as certain that there must be a range...and that I've watched arguments in which folks are attempting to be both meticulously true AND purposeful.

April 25, 2011 9:18 PM
Alrenous said...

Simo,

As I said, more answers are better. Thanks!


Aretae,

"But I think I'm confused about your question."

I disagree.

This is what I was looking for:

"When talking with ALMOST everyone else, I'd swear that meaning doesn't enter into the question AT ALL."

Thanks!

April 26, 2011 12:22 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)