Switch to: Citations

References in:

The pragmatic structure of refusal

Synthese 201 (6):1-19 (2023)

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. (1 other version)Speech acts.Mitchell S. Green - 2010 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Speech acts are a staple of everyday communicative life, but only became a topic of sustained investigation, at least in the English-speaking world, in the middle of the Twentieth Century.[1] Since that time “speech act theory” has been influential not only within philosophy, but also in linguistics, psychology, legal theory, artificial intelligence, literary theory and many other scholarly disciplines.[2] Recognition of the importance of speech acts has illuminated the ability of language to do other things than describe reality. In the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   56 citations  
  • Common ground.Robert Stalnaker - 2002 - Linguistics and Philosophy 25 (5):701-721.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   523 citations  
  • Speech acts and unspeakable acts.Rae Langton - 1993 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (4):293-330.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   343 citations  
  • A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.John R. Searle - 1975 - In K. Gunderson (ed.), Language, Mind and Knowledge. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 344-369.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   123 citations  
  • Undoing things with words.Laura Caponetto - 2018 - Synthese 197 (6):2399-2414.
    Over the last five decades, philosophers of language have looked into the mechanisms for doing things with words. The same attention has not been devoted to how to undo those things, once they have been done. This paper identifies and examines three strategies to make one’s speech acts undone—namely, Annulment, Retraction, and Amendment. In annulling an act, a speaker brings to light its fatal flaws. Annulment amounts to recognizing an act as null, whereas retraction and amendment amount to making it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • Pragmatics.S. C. Levinson - 1983 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 49 (3):531-532.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   533 citations  
  • (1 other version)Scorekeeping in a Language Game.David Lewis - 1979 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (3):339.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   640 citations  
  • Yes Means Yes: Consent as Communication.Tom Dougherty - 2015 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 43 (3):224-253.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   58 citations  
  • Context and Content: Essays on Intentionality in Speech and Thought.Robert Stalnaker - 1999 - Oxford, GB: Oxford University Press UK.
    In Context and Content Robert Stalnaker develops a philosophical picture of the nature of speech and thought and the relations between them. Two themes in particular run through these collected essays: the role that the context in which speech takes place plays in accounting for the way language is used to express thought, and the role of the external environment in determining the contents of our thoughts. Stalnaker argues against the widespread assumption of the priority of linguistic over mental representation, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   387 citations  
  • Context.Robert Stalnaker - 2014 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Robert Stalnaker explores the contexts in which speech takes place, the ways we represent them, and the roles they play in explaining the interpretation and dynamics of speech. His central thesis is the autonomy of pragmatics: the independence of theory about structure and function of discourse from theory about mechanisms serving those functions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   160 citations  
  • Subordinating Speech.Ishani Maitra - 2012 - In Ishani Maitra & Mary Kate McGowan (eds.), Speech and Harm: Controversies Over Free Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 94-120.
    This chapter considers whether ordinary instances of racist hate speech can be authoritative, thereby constituting the subordination of people of color. It is often said that ordinary speakers cannot subordinate because they lack authority. Here it is argued that there are more ways in which speakers can come to have authority than have been generally recognized. In part, this is because authority has been taken to be too closely tied to social position. This chapter presents a series of examples which (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   70 citations  
  • Opening up Closings.Emanuel A. Schegloff & Harvey Sacks - 1973 - Semiotica 8 (4).
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   206 citations  
  • Leave the Gun; Take the Cannoli! The Pragmatic Topography of Second-Person Calls.Mark Lance & Rebecca Kukla - 2013 - Ethics 123 (3):456-478.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts.Kent Bach & Robert M. Harnish - 1979 - Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    a comprehensive, somewhat Gricean theory of speech acts, including an account of communicative intentions and inferences, a taxonomy of speech acts, and coverage of many topics in pragmatics -/- .
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   379 citations  
  • Free speech and illocution.Rae Langton & Jennifer Hornsby - 1998 - Legal Theory 4 (1):21-37.
    We defend the view of some feminist writers that the notion of silencing has to be taken seriously in discussions of free speech. We assume that what ought to be meant by ‘speech’, in the context ‘free speech’, is whatever it is that a correct justification of the right to free speech justifies one in protecting. And we argue that what one ought to mean includes illocution, in the sense of J.L. Austin.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   159 citations  
  • How to do things with words.John L. Austin - 1962 - Oxford [Eng.]: Clarendon Press. Edited by Marina Sbisá & J. O. Urmson.
    For this second edition, the editors have returned to Austin's original lecture notes, amending the printed text where it seemed necessary.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1664 citations  
  • Silencing speech.Ishani Maitra - 2009 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 39 (2):pp. 309-338.
    Pornography deserves special protections, it is often said, because it qualifies as speech. Therefore, no matter what we think of its content, we must afford it the protections that we extend to most speech, but don’t extend to other actions.1 In response, Jennifer Hornsby and Rae Langton have argued that the case is not so simple: one of the harms of pornography, they claim, is that it silences women’s speech, thereby preventing women from deriving from speech the very benefits that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   92 citations  
  • Foundations of Illocutionary Logic.John Rogers Searle & Daniel Vanderveken - 1985 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
    This is a formal and systematic study of the logical foundations of speech act theory. The study of speech acts has been a flourishing branch of the philosophy of language and linguistics over the last two decades, and John Searle has of course himself made some of the most notable contributions to that study in the sequence of books Speech Acts, Expression and Meaning and Intentionality. In collaboration with Daniel Vanderveken he now presents the first formalised logic of a general (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   186 citations  
  • How to read Austin.Marina Sbisà - 2007 - In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. pp. 17--3.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   33 citations  
  • Understanding acts of consent: Using speech act theory to help resolve moral dilemmas and legal disputes.Monica R. Cowart - 2004 - Law and Philosophy 23 (5):495 - 525.
    Understanding what it means toconsent is of considerable importance sincesignificant moral issues depend on how this actis defined. For instance, determining whetherconsent has occurred is the deciding factor insexual assault cases; its proper occurrence isa necessary condition for federally fundedhuman subject research. Even though mosttheorists recognize the legal and moralimportance of consent, there is still littleagreement concerning how consent should bedefined, or whether different domains involvingconsent demand context-specific definitions.Understanding what it means to consent isfurther complicated by the fact that currentlegal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Illocution, silencing and the act of refusal.Mari Mikkola - 2011 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):415-437.
    Rae Langton and Jennifer Hornsby argue that there may be a free-speech argument against pornography, if pornographic speech has the power to illocutionarily silence women: women's locution ‘No!’ that aims to refuse unwanted sex may misfire because pornography creates communicative conditions where the locution does not count as a refusal. Central to this is the view that women's speech lacks uptake, which is necessary for illocutionary acts like that of refusal. Alexander Bird has critiqued this view by arguing that uptake (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • On Silencing, Authority, and the Act of Refusal.Laura Caponetto - 2017 - Rivista di Estetica 64:35-52.
    The notion of ‘illocutionary silencing’ has been given a key role in defining the harms of pornography by several feminist philosophers. Though the literature on silencing focuses almost exclusively on the speech act of sexual refusal, oddly enough, it lacks a thorough analysis of that very act. My first aim is to fill this theoretical gap. I claim that refusals are “second-turn illocutions”: they cannot be accomplished in absence of a previous interrogative (or open) call by the hearer. Furthermore, I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations