14.832, Disc: Performatives and Meaning

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-14-832. Fri Mar 21 2003. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 14.832, Disc: Performatives and Meaning

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U.<aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry, Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>

Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org):
	Simin Karimi, U. of Arizona
	Terence Langendoen, U. of Arizona

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen at linguistlist.org>
 ==========================================================================
FUND DRIVE 2003

To give you an incentive to donate, many of our Supporting Publishers
have generously donated some amazing linguistic prizes. As a donor you
are automatically entered into this prize draw. To find out what's on
offer and the rules etc., visit:

http://linguistlist.org/prizedraw.html

We still have a long way to go, however, to reach our target of
$50,000. Please make a donation at:

http://linguistlist.org/donation.html

The LINGUIST List depends on the generous contributions from
subscribers like you; we would not be able to operate without your
help.

The moderators, staff, and student editors at LINGUIST would like to
take this opportunity to thank you for your continuous support.

To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html.
=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:43:49 -0800 (PST)
From:  "Ahmad R. Lotfi" <arlotfi at yahoo.com>
Subject:  Re: 14.767: Performatives and Meaning

2)
Date:  Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:18:18 -0500
From:  "mjmurphy" <4mjmu at rogers.com>
Subject:  Re: 14.767: Performatives and Meaning

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 18 Mar 2003 20:43:49 -0800 (PST)
From:  "Ahmad R. Lotfi" <arlotfi at yahoo.com>
Subject:  Re: 14.767: Performatives and Meaning

In Linguist 14.789
M.J.Murphy wrote:

>
> In Linguist 14.767
> Ahmad R. Lotfi wrote:
>
>
>> Apart from what Lycan himself has in mind concerning the
>> meaning of meaning, one may take this example as some support
>> for Ayer's claim that unless a sentence can be verified (in
>> principle), it's meaningless. Lycan's sentences do make sense
>> (and we understand them even if we don't accept them) for the
>> very reason that they can be falsified. Wittgenstein (also
>> Austin) rejects this as performatives (sentences used to
>> perform acts of the very sort named by the verb, e.g.
>> (1) ''The meeting is adjourned'') are neither true nor
>> false. They can only be evaluated as felicitous or
>> infelicitous. Then meaning is more than verifiability as
>> performatives do make sense (and we understand them) although

>> they are not verifiable (in principle).
>>
>> What disturbs me, however, is the fact that once a
>> performative sentence is changed in its tense, e.g. (2) ''The
>> meeting was adjourned right now'', it stops being a
>> performative, and (as a result)it can be verified. Though
>> this is still in agreement with Wittgenstein and
>> Austin's reasoning, it also raises the question of how real-
>> time hearers ''understand'' a performative. One possibility
>> is that the moment the chair utters (1), they construct (2),
>> and then (and only then) they understand (1) as
>> meaningful. ''I hereby know a lady named Maxine'' doesn't
>> normally make any sense because ''Adolf Hitler knew a
>> lady named Maxine right now'' doesn't make sense either. If
>> so, then even  performatives are still understood as
>> sentences verifiable in principle.
>
>
> They are understood as performatives; you have only shown that
> to be be understood as performatives the hearer must come to
> an understanding of a verifiable sentence which is a construct
> from the performative.


The key word here again is "understanding". Meaning as
understanding puts the question in a psychological perspective
(let's call it a psycho-semantic perspective, for our purposes
here) that is concerned with how real-time language-users
discover meaning and not what sentences mean by themselves. (And
this is still in lines with Ayer's claims that for a sentence to
make sense, it must be verified--with verification as what
real-time users do). In this so-called psycho-semantic
framework, understanding a performative necessitates the
verification of a construct closely related to it. If so, then
the *meaningfulness*, i.e. the user's ability to afford a
semantic interpretation, of a performative is still due to some
INDIRECT verification of it via the DIRECT verification of its
nonperformative counterpart.

Regards,

Ahmad R. Lotfi
Azad University (Iran)&
American University of Hawaii


-------------------------------- Message 2 -------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 21 Mar 2003 07:18:18 -0500
From:  "mjmurphy" <4mjmu at rogers.com>
Subject:  Re: 14.767: Performatives and Meaning

I wrote:

> > They are understood as performatives; you have only shown that
> > to be be understood as performatives the hearer must come to
> > an understanding of a verifiable sentence which is a construct
> > from the performative.

Ahmad R. Lotfi responded

> The key word here again is "understanding". Meaning as
> understanding puts the question in a psychological perspective
> (let's call it a psycho-semantic perspective, for our purposes
> here) that is concerned with how real-time language-users
> discover meaning and not what sentences mean by themselves. (And
> this is still in lines with Ayer's claims that for a sentence to
> make sense, it must be verified--with verification as what
> real-time users do). In this so-called psycho-semantic
> framework, understanding a performative necessitates the
> verification of a construct closely related to it. If so, then
> the *meaningfulness*, i.e. the user's ability to afford a
> semantic interpretation, of a performative is still due to some
> INDIRECT verification of it via the DIRECT verification of its
> nonperformative counterpart.

As written, this just won't work.  Ayer's claim is that to make sense
a sentence must be verifiable, not verified.  If it had to be
verified, then to understand a sentence you would have to already know
that it was true/false.  So I would not understand the sentence
"George Bush has false teeth." because I don't know whether he does or
not.

Cheers,

M.J.Murphy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-14-832