In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
Jesús Na a o-Reyes, Uni e si y o Se ille
Abs ac
I ha e a gued elsewhe e (Na a o-Reyes 2010) ha he kind o excuses ha appeal o a lack o
in en ion in he pe o mance o a speech ac do no , in gene al, y o deny ha he deed i sel ook
place (i.e., in cases whe e we say ha he ac is pe o med unin en ionally, we would no imply
ha he ac was no pe o med a all, bu ha i was pe o med in a pa icula way). I his is co -
ec , speech ac s oken pe o mances ough o be de ined independen ly o he speake ’s pu a i e
illocu iona y in en ions. In his pape I will pu sue his idea by discussing he iews o Als on
(2000), a p ominen champion o he in en ionalis ic accoun , who de ines speech ac s in e ms o
he no ion o “ aking esponsibili y”. Unlike Als on, I will claim ha ‘unhea d speech ac s’ a e no
a legi ima e ca ego y wi hin speech ac s, whe eas cases o ‘unin ended speech ac s’ migh be co -
ec ly conside ed as legi ima e cases o speech ac s, since hey do e ec i ely change he no ma-
i e con ex .
Keywo ds
speech ac s heo y, in en ional ac ion, esponsibili y, second pe son pe spec i e
In oduc ion
Should speech ac s be de ined as in en ional ac ions, i.e. as ac ions essen ially pe -
o med wi h pa icula in en ions? Tha seems o be ou o ques ion in speech ac s
heo y, a leas in Aus in’s (1962) and Sea le’s (1969) adi ion. I do no hesi a e
ha speech ac s, as a social p ac ice, mus be de ined in e ms o in en ions and, in
pa icula , o illocu iona y in en ions. Wi h no appeal o hose in en ions he e is no
way o unde s and wha he p ac ice is, and no way o dis inguish di e en ypes o
illocu iona y ac s. Bu I would like o cas some doub s he e abou he need o de-
ine oken speech ac s pe o mances in e ms o he pu a i e in en ions o speake s.
In my opinion, i could be legi ima e o asse ha someone pe o med a pa icula
speech ac , e en i in ac she did no ha e he illocu iona y in en ions ha a e usu-
ally conside ed as cons i u i e o ha speech ac .
My c i icism will ocus on Als on’s (2000) ea men o wo so s o bounda y
cases in speech ac s heo y: unhea d speech ac s and unin ended speech ac s. Wi h
espec o he o me , Als on conside s ha hey a e a legi ima e ca ego y wi hin
speech ac s. In his opinion, an illocu iona y ac does ake place despi e being un-
hea d by anybody. Fo ins ance, acco ding o Als on, an u e ance ha was pe -
o med wi h he in en ion o make a p omise would s ill be a p omise, despi e i
was no hea d by he in ended audience, o e en by anybody. I will explain he ea-
sons why I hink his is w ong, since i implies ha Als on’s iew is oo ocussed
on wha has been called ‘inne ’ condi ions.
Na a o-Reyes, J. (2014) "In en ion and Responsibili y in
Speech Ac s. A no e on Als on", in Cogni i e and P agma ic
Aspec s o Speech Ac ions, edi ed by Iwona Wi czak-
Plisiecka, Pe e Lang Ed., F ank u /New Yo k, 187–206.
188
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
Wi h espec o he la e , unin ended speech ac s, Als on’s posi ion is he e-
e se: he ends o assume ha , in so a as he u e ance was no pe o med by he
speake wi h some speci ic illocu iona y in en ion, he alleged speech ac did no
ake place a all. In his iew, he unin ended speech ac would only be an appa en
speech ac : some hing w ongly conside ed as a speech ac by he audience, bu ha ,
in so a as i was unin ended, would no ha e aken place a all. I will also disag ee
wi h Als on on his poin , and I will de end ha unin ended speech ac s a e a legi -
ima e ca ego y o speech ac s: a c ucial possibili y ha mus be conside ed in he
de ini ion o oken—o indi idual—illocu iona y ac s. The u h is ha Als on’s
posi ion in his espec is no e y clea : in he i s place, he doub s ha unin ended
speech ac s a e e en possible a all. In his iew, illocu iona y ac s a e essen ially
in en ional ac ions. Howe e , in case unin ended speech ac s we e e e possible,
Als on conside s hem as so inge and ma ginal possibili ies ha he does no ind
hem ele an enough o modi y he co e o his heo y. In en ion, o Als on —as
o mos speech ac s heo is s—, is cons i u i e o each and e e y illocu iona y ac
pe o mance. In con as o his, I will de end ha in en ions a e cons i u i e o he
p ac ice o speech ac s, bu no necessa ily o each and e e y pe o mance wi hin
ha p ac ice. We need o in oduce in en ions in o ou accoun i we wan o de ine
illocu iona y ac s ypes, bu we should no in oduce hem as necessa y condi ions
o iden i y illocu iona y ac okens. In o he wo ds: in en ions do no ha e o be
necessa ily pa o he scene, in o de o ha e a case o ully commi ing illocu ion-
a y ac pe o mance.
The poin o iew ha I will de end, as we shall see in he end, denies ha he
i s pe son poin o iew should ha e he las wo d in de e mining he occu ence
o speech ac s. On he con a y, I will de end ha i is he second pe son poin o
iew—i.e., he poin o iew o he hea e — ha should ha e ha las wo d, despi e
i is—and mus be—epis emically limi ed. F om he hea e ’s limi ed pe spec i e,
she migh ha e he igh o asse ha a pa icula illocu iona y ac ook place dis-
ega ding he e ec i e occu ence o in en ions by he pa o he speake . The key
o guess i a pa icula speech ac did e ec i ely ake place is no o be ound in he
speake ’s mind, bu in he legi ima e expec a ions ha he u e ance c ea ed in he
hea e ’s mind. These expec a ions a e linked o he a ibu ion o in en ions o he
speake bu , in he las eso , wha makes he u e ance coun as a speech ac is no
he e ec i e occu ence o hose in en ions, bu he legi imacy o he hea e ’s a -
ibu ion o hose in en ions.
In o de o show he ele ance o his discussion, I will b ie ly ske ch he ise
o he p oblem in Aus in’s and Sea le’s accoun s, be o e ge ing o Als on.
In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
189
App oaching he p oblem
Aus in’s Hippoly us and he isks o he i s pe son pe spec i e
I hink we ha e o hank Gazda (1981: 68) o he one ha migh be he simples
and clea es o maliza ion o wha a speech ac is: “a unc ion om con ex s in o
con ex s”. By u e ing some wo ds, he speake changes he social con ex and, in
pa icula , she changes i s no ma i e condi ions. E.g.: a
1
, be o e I made my
daugh e he p omise o b ing he o he pa k, I was no obliged o b ing he o he
pa k. A
2
I u e he wo ds “I p omise o b ing you o he pa k”, which she hea s
and unde s ands. Because o ha , a
3
, I am obliged o b ing he o he pa k. Why
did he no ma i e si ua ion change be ween
1
and
3
? Why do we say ha I ha e a
no ma i e eason o do some hing a
3
, which I did no ha e a
1
? Gazda ’s de ini-
ion is a good desc ip ion o wha happened, bu i is no an explana ion. The ques-
ion is: why does he con ex change a all, jus because I u e ed some wo ds?
Aus in was clea ly igh when he claimed ha making a speech ac is some-
hing mo e han jus u e ing some wo ds. Disag eemen a i es when we y o de-
ine wha his ‘some hing mo e’ is: i.e. he kind o condi ions ha u n he me e
u e ance o some wo ds in o ully ledged—and mo ally commi ing—speech ac s.
I seems o be ou o ques ion ha he e mus be some kind o ex e nal condi ions
abou he su ounding con ex o he u e ance: wo ds ough o be u e ed in a ce -
ain way, in on o a pe inen audience, maybe acco ding o some p e-es ablished
con en ions, o a leas some sha ed linguis ic knowledge.
1
Fu he mo e, mos
schola s ag ee on he need o include some so o in e nal o cogni i e equi e-
men s, such as ha he ac had been done wi h speci ic illocu iona y in en ions—
he in en ion o p omise, o h ea , o o make a s a emen —, o ha he speake was
awa e o a leas some o he consequences o he own wo ds. I seems ha he u -
e ance mus ha e been done olun a ily, consciously, and in en ionally, o on pu -
pose, and i is usually alleged in a ou o his ha he lack o hose in e nal condi-
ions gi es ise o di e en kinds o excuses, which could inally no make i sensi-
ble o equi e om he speake o be commi ed o he wo ds. E.g., by claiming ha
i was no my in en ion o p omise, I would y o show ha I am no commi ed o
my own wo ds —i.e. I would y o show ha my wo ds did no e ec i ely change
he no ma i e si ua ion. F om his poin o iew, unin en ional p omises would no
be eal p omises, bu jus some so o misleading si ua ion: some hing ha looked
like a p omise, so o speak, om he ou side. P omises made wi hou he in en ion
1 I will mos ly use he concep o “con ex ” as e e ing o a se o ex e nal and in e nal condi-
ions o he u e ance, no in Spe be & Wilson’s limi ed sense, as “a psychological cons uc ,
a subse o he hea e ’s assump ions abou he wo ld” (1986: 15). The way I will use he
e m—which coincides, I hink, wi h Ha nish’s ecen discussion on he condi ions o speech
ac s (2009: 10)—will be wide , since i does no only include hose assump ions, bu also
many o he ea u es.
190
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
o p omise would no be a kind o p omise; in ac hey would no be p omises a
all.
Howe e , Aus in was qui e e icen o in oduce in e nal condi ions in his ac-
coun because he conside ed ha his would show speech ac s as a so o inne pe -
o mances ha would only indi ec ly ake place in he public scene. I we accep ed
ha he e a e some so o in e nal o men al necessa y condi ions o he pe o -
mance o a speech ac , we would seem o buy oo ha he e is some hing in he
mind o he speake , hidden o he hea e , which p ecludes us om ce ainly know
wea he he speech ac did e ec i ely ake place o no . In Aus in’s iews, speech
ac s a e social ac s: hey ake place in he social en i onmen . The p oblem is ha ,
i hei pe o mance depends cons i u i ely on he exis ence o inne hidden men al
s a es, which a e only accessible o he speake he sel , hen we seem o loose ha
social cha ac e . Speech ac s would un he isk o become some hing he speake
makes inside his mind, whe e he ex e nal mani es a ions would only be con ingen
and accesso y symp oms o ha ‘spi i ual’ p i a e ac ion.
Aus in’s ea s a e pe sonalised in he cha ac e o Hippoly us, who denied o be
bounded o his wo ds because hey had allegedly no been u e ed wi h he in en ion
o pe o m a commi ing speech ac . We ind Hippoly us a
3
, a e he occu ence
o an u e ance ha he audience had conside ed as a p omise, claiming ha ha
u e ance had no been made wi h he in en ion o bind: “An oa h my mou h made,
bu no my hea ”. I his escape we e possible a all, hen he whole sys em o
speech ac s would mel away like snow unde he sun. I wo ds could no bind un-
less hey we e accompanied by inne commi men s, and inne commi men s a e
ne e p esen in he public scene, hen hey loose he impo an ole ha hey ha e
in he wo king o social, s able sys ems o collabo a i e ac ions. I is hus a c ucial
ask o speech ac s heo y o gi e an accoun ha would p e en bad ai h use s o
language om escaping hei du ies. This is no jus a ma e o inge o ma ginal
cases, bu p obably he mo e undamen al mission ha speech ac s heo y could
e e ha e.
On he o he side, Aus in is awa e ha in en ions mus somehow be pa o he
s o y: i p omises we e ne e done wi h he in en ion o be commi ed o wo ds, he
p ac ice o p omising would loose i s poin . I seems ha I made a p omise because
I in ended o be bound by my wo ds—i.e., I in ended o change he no ma i e con-
ex , in o de o g an he hea e a ce ain igh o e my u u e ac ions. By he same
oken, whene e I o de some hing, I in end he hea e o be o ced o do wha I
say. Whene e I apologise o some hing, I in end o show my eg e abou wha I
did. Wha could be he poin o speech ac s, i hey did no exp ess hose illocu ion-
a y in en ions?
So we seem o be di ided be ween wo incompa ible equi emen s, and bo h o
hem seem o be qui e sensible: on he one hand, we ha e o de ine illocu iona y
ac s h ough ex e nal condi ions, since hey would o he wise be de ached om he
social en i onmen whe e public du ies a e es ablished. I hose ex e nal condi ions
In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
191
we e no ully de e minan , we would be blind when ying o asc ibe du ies and
commi men s o o he s, and ha would always lea e an open doo o Hippoly us
and hose o his kind. On he o he hand, we need o de ine illocu iona y ac s
h ough in e nal condi ions, since hei e y pe o mance seems o be non con in-
gen ly linked o he e ec i e in e en ion o ou men al s a es. I hose men al
s a es we e no in ol ed, speech ac s would seem o be emp y. Speech ac s wi hou
eal in en ions do no e en seem o be speech ac s, bu jus some hing ha esem-
bles hem ‘ om he ou side’. I some necessa y condi ions we e pu ely in e nal, we
would be blind in he adsc ip ion o illocu iona y ac s o o he s; i all necessa y
condi ions we e ex e nal, speech ac s would be emp y, and he p ac ice would be
dep i ed o meaning.
2
Sea le and his disdain o me ely epis emological p oblems
Dealing wi h his ension is a mus o speech ac s heo e icians. In gene al, hey y
o so i ou by combining in e nal and ex e nal condi ions in hei accoun s.
Sea le’s (1969) classic heo y migh be he bes example. He de ines wha a p om-
ise is desc ibing bo h wha happens on he inside and on he ou side o he minds o
he speake s. In his iew, speech ac s mus be pe o med wi h pa icula in en ions,
which a e cons i u i e o wha hose ac s a e—i.e., hose ac s would no be wha
hey a e i hose in en ions we e no in hei o igin. And, a he same ime, i is he
ex e nal cha ac e o he u e ance wha makes i coun as a speech ac in he con-
ex whe e i akes place. This is possible because speech ac s a e go e ned by wha
Sea le calls “cons i u i e ules”, which always ha e he s uc u e: x coun s as y in C
—i.e., an u e ance o a ce ain kind coun s as he pe o mance o a pa icula illo-
cu iona y ac in i s con ex .
3
I he speake is awa e o his cons i u i e ule, and he
2 Al hough his ension is impo an in Aus in’s wo k, his amous doc ine o he in elici ies
does no con on i a all (1962: 14). The si ua ions ha he conside s as inge o ma ginal
a e always cases whe e he speake pe o ms he u e ance wi h he in en ion o make he
speech ac , bu some condi ions a e no me up o he poin ha he ac was pu po ed bu
oid (mis i es) o p o essed bu hollow (abuses). Bu wha would Aus in ha e o say abou
cases in which a speake did no in end o pe o m a speech ac , bu he audience was well
jus i ied o conside ha she had pe o med i ? Would ha be a kind o ‘in elici y’? I ha in-
e nal condi ion was no me , did he e y ac e e happen a all? Wha would be, acco ding
o Aus in, he s a us o unin ended speech ac s?
3 The way his accoun elies on p e-es ablished con en ions has been c i icised in some a-
mous occasions—such as in (S awson 1964) o (Spe be & Wilson 1986: 244). Those ac-
coun s ely on in e en ial p ocesses o do wi hou con en ions—beyond basic linguis ic ones.
Bu I do no belie e ha his makes any essen ial di e ence wi h espec o he poin ha I
would like o make. In any case, e en i cons i u i e ules depended on in e en ial p ocesses,
i would s ill seem ha hose p ocesses would somehow ha e o be ex e nally jus i ied. In
o he wo ds: he in e en ial basis mus be publicly accessible, since i is wha makes i legi-
ima e o a hea e o ake x as coun ing as y in C.

192
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
ac ion is in en ional and e ec i e, she in ends o make x coun as y in C. Bo h in-
e nal and ex e nal condi ions a e me he e, in ideal condi ions.
The ques ion we could add ess o Sea le would hen be: wha happens when
only one o hose wo so s o condi ions is me ? In pa icula , wha happens when
x does coun as y in C, bu x was no pe o med wi h ha in en ion? Would we s ill
ha e he e a case o an illocu iona y ac o no ? E.g.: would an unin ended p omise
be a so o p omise—in olun a y made, bu s ill ully commi ing—, o would i
no be a p omise a all?
4
And, al e na i ely, we would also ha e o ask wha hap-
pens in cases whe e he in en ion is no ul illed h ough he pe o mance: cases in
which he speake in ends x o coun as y in C, bu she is, o ins ance, unhea d by
he in ended audience.
Sea le would p obably claim ha hose a e me ely epis emological ques ions.
We know ha bo h in e nal and ex e nal condi ions a e me in ‘no mal’ speech ac s.
And he co e o his heo y is abou hose no mal condi ions. Ex ao dina y si ua-
ions should no a ec he co e o he heo y, since we all know wha an o dina y
p omise is, and i is his in ui ion wha is de eloped h ough he sys ema ic s udy o
‘linguis ic cha ac e iza ions’ (1969: 4). In eal li e, we migh don’ know, in pa ic-
ula cases, i some o hose condi ions a e me : maybe x does coun as y in C, al -
hough he speake did no in end i o be so. Bu om he ac ha we migh no be
su e i in pa icula cases, acco ding o Sea le, no hing in e es ing ollows abou he
na u e o he p ac ice, which necessa ily in ol es bo h aspec s. In his opinion,
speech ac s heo y should be made om he poin o iew o God, whe e all he
aspec s o he con ex would be anspa en ly p esen , including he minds o he
speake s.
Howe e , I would like o discuss he con enience o hose claims. The u h is
ha , in eal li e, speech ac s should hold up e en in God’s absence, o a leas in
God’s silence: wha shall we hen say om ou poin o iew, which is—and will
always be—epis emically limi ed? In pa icula , i could be alleged ha , om he
poin o iew o human speake s, he in e nal cogni i e s a es o o he s a e ne e
pa o he sha ed con ex . A leas ha is wha Hippoly us seems o claim: ha we
only saw his wo ds, u e ed by his ongue, bu no his hea o his soul, which had
qui e di e en in en ions. In cases like his, we ha e wo inconsis en candida es o
de e mine he e ec i e occu ence o he ac : he alleged in en ions o he speake
on he one hand and he ex e nal cons i u i e ules on he o he . We ind bo h ha x
coun s as y in C, and ha he speake claims ha he did no in end x o coun as y in
4 I migh be impo an o poin ou ha I am no e e ing he e o cases o insince e speech
ac s—such as insince e p omises, whe e he p omiso would no ha e he in en ion o ul ill
he p omise. E en in cases like his, as Sea le’s discussion co ec ly shows (1969: 62), i
seems ha he speake should somehow ha e he in en ion ha he u e ance will make he
esponsible o in ending o pe o m he p omised ac ion. I is he lack o his second o de
in en ion wha bad ai h use s o language, such as Hippoly us, could always deny o ha e
had.
In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
193
C. In cases like his, Sea le’s heo y eludes he p oblem, conside ing i as me ely
epis emological. Bu i could ha dly be igno ed, unless we a e happy o lea e ou
heo y ou o he ealm o eal li e.
Als on and he ac o aking esponsibili y
In con as o Sea le, who seems o a oid he p oblem, William P. Als on (2000)
has ied o gi e i an answe . In his iew, an illocu iona y ac is necessa ily he e -
ec o an in ended ac ion. This in ended ac ion is wha he calls “R’ing”, which
s ands o “ aking esponsibili y o he sa is ac ion o a condi ion” (2000: 54). Ac-
co ding o Als on, R’ing is some hing ha he speake does: no jus some hing she
ealises o assumes, o some hing ha happens o he , bu an ac ion ha mus be
conscious and in en ional, in o de o be he so o ac ion ha i is.
5
The ac i e
cha ac e o his in en ional ac ion in ol es he u e e ’s ins i u ing a s a e o a ai s,
a he han jus being a ma e o he u e e 's ecognizing an al eady exis ing s a e
o a ai s, o assuming i .
Tha would mean ha , i a speake (S) p omised a hea e (H) ha he would
b ing he o he pa k, hen S ook esponsibili y (R’d) o b inging H o he pa k.
And i S was no aking esponsibili y o b inging H o he pa k, S did no p omise
H o b ing he o he pa k. Wha e e he u e ed, wi hou he in en ion o ake ha
esponsibili y he e would be no illocu iona y ac . This in en ion would be cons i u-
i e o he ac up o he poin ha , in i s absence, he e would be no such ac . P om-
ising would no jus be u e ing some wo ds, bu R’ing in u e ing hem. The speak-
e ’s in en ional ac ion o R’ing would be he eason why Gazda ’s unc ion applies,
and no ma i e con ex s change wi h he occu ence o speech pe o mances.
Acco ding o Als on, we ely on he ex e nal condi ions in o de o ecognise
hose in e nal in en ions. I x coun s as y in C, i is because we know ha , by u e -
ing x, S was R’ing. Looking o he speake ’s in en ion o R is looking o he e y
occu ence o he illocu iona y ac . P o iding conclusi e e idence ha S did no
in end o R would eo ipso mean ha S did no pe o m any illocu iona y ac a all.
This is he iew ha I would like o con on . In wha ollows, I will y o
show ha his accoun does no wo k because wha makes a communi y conside an
u e ance as a commi ing speech ac is no he p esence o absence o ha ac o
R’ing by he pa o he speake in he momen o he u e ance, bu he way he
u e ance i sel was pe o med wi h ega ds o he se o expec a ions ha we e jus -
ly gene a ed by i in he audience. In my iew, i is he up ake o hea e s—a leas
he one ha is legi ima e, acco ding o he ci cums ances—wha would be cons i u-
5 Moya (1990: 38-48) seems o de end a simila poin om he philosophy o ac ion. He does
no alk abou speech o illocu iona y ac s, bu abou “symbolic ac s”, which he de ines as
necessa ily implying he in en ion om he pa o he agen . I belie e ha mos o wha is
said he e abou Als on migh also be applied, mu a is mu andi, o Moya’s accoun o symbol-
ic ac s.
194
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
i e o he ac i sel . I I am igh , he ac would s ill be in o de e en i we didn’
know i he speake had he in en ion o R. Wha is mo e: he illocu iona y ac
would s ill be such an ac e en i we inally knew ha he speake was no in end-
ing o R. Recognising he in en ion o R would hen no be he same as iden i ying
he e ec i e occu ence o he illocu iona y ac .
I hink ha Als on is igh in conside ing esponsibili y as he key concep in
he de ini ion o illocu iona y ac s, bu I don’ hink ha he speake ’s ake o e-
sponsibili y is he c ucial poin . I would say ha he key is no in he assump ion o
esponsibili y om he i s pe son poin o iew —i.e. he poin o iew o he
speake — bu he a ibu ion o esponsibili y om he second pe son poin o iew
—i.e. he poin o iew o he hea e . The necessa y condi ions o he iden i ica-
ion o a speech ac a e no o be ound in he i s pe son poin o iew o he
speake , who allegedly made he sel esponsible o he wo ds, bu om he second
pe son poin o iew o he hea e , who legi ima ely made he speake esponsible
o he u e ance. I will hus y o de end ha oken speech ac s do no hold up be-
cause we make ou sel es esponsible o wha we say when we say i , bu because
we a e made esponsible o wha we ha e said, once we ha e said i .
Con on ing he p oblem in Als on’s accoun
I migh be easie o unde s and he di e ence be ween Als on’s iews and he ones
ha I am p oposing by conside ing how could we pa aph ase he ollowing ques-
ion: did he speech ac ake place? Acco ding o Als on, we could eplace his by
he ques ion: did he speake R? In my iew, he co ec pa aph ase would be: was
he hea e su icien ly jus i ied o a ibu e he in en ion o R o he speake ? The
di e ence is impo an because he hea e could be jus i ied, bu w ong. I.e. he
could ha e e y good easons o a ibu e o he speake an illocu iona y in en ion,
e en i he speake did no ha e i a all.
6
I ha is co ec , we could ind si ua ions
in which he speech ac ook place, despi e he absence o illocu iona y in en ion by
he pa o he speake . Those would be cases o unin ended speech ac s, and I will
y o show ha hey a e genuine a ibu ions o speech ac s. Al e na i ely, e en i
he speake R’d in en ionally, in my iew he speech ac did no ake place i he
hea e did no ha e —o was no awa e— o good easons o a ibu e o he speak-
e he in en ion o R. Those would be cases o unhea d speech ac s, and I will claim
ha hey a e no genuine a ibu ions o speech ac s. The di e ence be ween Al-
s on’s iews and he ones ha I p opose can hus be es ed in hese wo so s o
ma ginal, inge cases.
6 I am assuming he e a poin ha is gene ally accep ed in epis emology: ha somebody could
be jus i ied in belie ing p, e en i she could be w ong. “S is jus i ied o belie e p” does no
imply ha p is necessa ily ue.
In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
195
A e he e unhea d illocu iona y ac s?
In con as o bo h Aus in and Sea le, Als on conside s ha he illocu iona y ac
does ake place dis ega ding he audience up ake, unde s anding, o e en hea ing o
he u e ance. This is his eason o e use Sea le’s equi emen o “no mal condi-
ions o inpu and ou pu ” in he pe o mance o p omises. Acco ding o Als on,
e.g.:
i is no necessa y o p omising [a hea e ] H ha I will do [an ac ion] A […] ha H un-
de s and wha I said. To be su e, i H did no unde s and me, she didn' ealize ha I
made ha p omise, bu I could s ill ha e done i . Suppose ha I mis akenly hink ha H
hea d and unde s ood me. I show up o ake H o he mee ing, and H is su p ised a his.
I migh well say “Didn’ you hea me when I p omised o ake you?”, he eby p esup-
posing ha I did p omise his e en i H didn' ealize i (Als on 2000: 53).
The e o e, acco ding o Als on, an unhea d p omise is a p omise, as a as he ac o
R’ing ook place, unbeknowns o he hea e . Als on is awa e ha his is a ho ny
poin , since i could seem ha he is u ning he speech ac in o some hing ha akes
place in absence o any social ame. He hus has o quali y la e his posi ion, along
he ollowing e ms:
he possibili y o a no ma i e s a e o a ai s being ini ia ed by [ he u e e ’s] U’s R’ing
ha C depends on he exis ence o a sys em o ules ha is in o ce wi hin a communi y
ha includes U. […] When U R's ha C in pe o ming an illocu iona y ac , ha is no a
pu ely p i a e pe o mance ha could be wha i is ega dless o how i engages he su -
ounding communi y. Fo R'ing consis s in making ce ain kinds o eac ions by o he s
app op ia e (Als on 2000: 58).
Howe e , as I will y o show, his cla i ica ion does no seem o be enough o ex-
one a e Als on om he accusa ion o conside ing speech ac s as p i a e pe o -
mances, which only acciden ally ake place in he social scene.
Bu le ’s ollow his a gumen o a momen . We a e dealing wi h a si ua ion in
which S belie es ha he made a p omise o H, bu H did no hea i . S belie es ha
a p omise was made, bu H does no . Who would be w ong he e? Acco ding o
Als on, i is H who is mis aken, since S did ake he esponsibili y o he wo ds,
whe he H hea d hem o no , and whe he H ecognised he in en ions o no . In
Als on’s opinion, he p omise was pe o med, despi e he ac ha nobody no iced
i , because S would ha e succeeded in making ce ain kinds o eac ions app op i-
a e—dis ega ding he ac ha hose who could ha e bene i ed om his no ma i e
change knew i o no . I S had no shown up o ake H o he mee ing, hen H
would ha e been in a good si ua ion o ec imina e his o S, whe he she knew o
no ha she was in such a posi ion. And S would s ill be exposed o such c i icism,
acco ding o Als on, because she did pe o m he speech ac , al hough i was no
hea d by anybody.
Pace Als on, I would say ha i is S who would be w ong in his imagined
case. No he unhea ing p omisee, bu he unhea d p omiso . In my iew, he p om-
ise would ha e no aken place, since i was unhea d by anybody. In my opinion,
202
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
know whe he he ac ook place o no is in his second pe son pe spec i e— he
one o hea e s—no in he i s pe son pe spec i e— he one o he speake . I he
in e en ial basis o he audience is s ong enough, ha is, i i co ec ly jus i ies he
a ibu ion o he in en ion—some hing ha could happen e en i ha a ibu ion
we e w ong— he ac ac ually happened— ha is, Gazda ’s unc ion would apply,
and he no ma i e con ex would ha e e ec i ely changed. In his espec , he i s
pe son pe spec i e is no de e minan o know i he ac ook place o no —
al hough i migh be de e minan o know i i was an in en ional ac o no .
Als on would disag ee on his poin . In his iew, somebody “p i y o his sec e
in en ions” would ha e o assume ha he speech ac did no ake place a all—e.g.,
because he g oom hough ha he had aken ime o . Bu I would eply ha e en
somebody p i y o hose hidden men al s a es would ha e o accep ha he b oom
was ge ing ma ied, e en i he was no awa e o ha ac . The eason is ha he
pe o mance o he ac — he ‘ou e ’ u e ance—was done in such a way ha i was
co ec o he audience o assume i as an illocu iona y ac , p ecisely because hey
had no clue a all abou he speake ’s de ian in en ions. I is ue ha he hea e s’
pe spec i e was epis emically limi ed—i.e. hey didn’ know abou he sec e in en-
ions o he speake —; howe e , i is om his epis emically limi ed pe spec i e
whe e illocu iona y adsc ip ions mus always be made. The key o know i he ac
e ec i ely ook place is no o be ound in ha “p i y” ealm o he mind o he
speake , bu in he public ealm o social in e ac ion. The pe o mance o an illocu-
iona y ac s is no cons i u i ely connec ed o he p i a e and sec e in en ions o
he speake —as a se o s a es ha we could only hypo he ically in e om his be-
ha iou —bu o he se o c i e ia ha a e, and mus be, sha ed by he use s o lan-
guage.
Those socially es ablished c i e ia—an idea aken om Wi gens ein’s la e
philosophy (see Na a o-Reyes 2010)—a e logically good easons o he a ibu-
ion o in en ions. By ac ing in a ce ain way—e.g., by u e ing some pa icula
wo ds in a speci ic con ex —you gi e you audience a good eason o belie e ha
you had some in en ion in pe o ming hose ac ions. And ha eason is somehow
good ‘by de ini ion’: ac ing in such a way means ha you ha e such and such in-
en ions. Howe e , e en i hei alidi y is a p io i, c i e ia a e de easible. They a e
no in allible, and he e migh be an impo an ambigui y in hei applica ion; in
hose cases, we would p obably gi e he speake he bene i o he doub abou he
own in en ions. Bu i c i e ia a e ul illed up o a ce ain poin , as hey a e in he
si ua ion Als on inally concei es, hen he s o y lea es no oom o ambigui y, and
wha e e he speake la e says abou his own p i a e s a es, his claims would jus
be ou o o de .
This is wha happens in he inal e sion o he s o y: an ex emely odd and
wis ed case, a e all he quali ica ions ha Als on imposes on i —excluding anc-
es o dazzling si ua ions, ime o aken by he g oom, and so on. We a e asked o
en isage a pe son who ealizes ha , in his si ua ion, i he u e s 'I do' wi hou any

In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
203
indica ion o a nons anda d use, he will be aken o ha e unde aken o ma y he
p ospec i e b ide. Realizing his, he says 'I do' wi hou gi ing any indica ion o a
nons anda d use, e en hough his in en ion is no o make he ma i al p omise:
I ind his incohe en as a desc ip ion o a pe son in possession o his senses. I can make
no sense o he idea ha a pe son in ull possession o his acul ies, ealizing ha u e -
ing S will place him in a ce ain posi ion, p oceeds o u e S in ull awa eness o wha
he is doing bu wi hou in ending o place himsel in ha posi ion. I would say ha such
a pe son has in en ionally en e ed in o he con ac , wha e e he may say la e . Wi h he
cons ain s speci ied I don' know how o gi e a cohe en desc ip ion o he case excep
in hose e ms. […] [This] is a he like jumping ou o a se en ie h-s o y window in ull
knowledge o wha ha means, bu no be in ending o kill onesel (Als on 2000: 141).
I hink ha wha is pe plexing o Als on is no ha he imagined g oom is i a ion-
al o inconsis en , bu ha he s o y i sel is pe ec ly cohe en wi h his own ac-
coun . I he pe o mance o he illocu iona y ac is s ic ly dependen on he causal
ole accomplished by he men al s a e o he speake —his “p i y” in en ion—, and
his men al s a e is de e mined independen ly o any social c i e ia, his imagined
G oom is pe ec ly concei able: a pe son who would ac acco ding o social c i e ia
up o poin ha would lea e no doub s wha soe e abou his own in en ions... bu
would no ha e hose in en ions a all. Wha is odd in Als on’s inal case is ha he
g oom has simply no public excuse o any kind bu , in Als on’s accoun , his si ua-
ion does no p e en him om ha ing he inal and c ucial excuse: ha he simply
did no in end o R, and he hus did no pe o m he illocu iona y ac a all.
The possibili y o an unin ended g oom is an e ec o Als on’s eliance on p i-
a e in en ions, as a cons i u i e ea u e o illocu iona y ac s. And he way he ies
o escape om his undesi ed consequence o his accoun is ex emely disconce -
ing:
(2) We mus also no iden i y he ques ion o wha illocu iona y ac , i any, he pe -
o med wi h he ques ion o wha con en ional e ec was gene a ed. I is concei able
ha he law should be such ha when ce ain wo ds a e u e ed (in he absence o ce ain
kinds o de ea e s such as coe cion o men al incapaci y) he u e e has aken on ce ain
obliga ions and his consequence migh hold ega dless o wha is he co ec illocu ion-
a y desc ip ion o his ac i i y (Als on 2000: 139).
By elling illocu iona y ac s apa om hei con en ional consequences, Als on
assumes a cos ha is much highe han he is willing o accep . Gazda ’s ini ial de-
sc ip ion o wha a speech ac is, o ins ance, would no wo k, since i could be he
case ha we had he unc ion om one no ma i e con ex o ano he jus wi h he
u e ance. I Als on we e igh , we would be o ced o say some hing like ha he
b oom is ma ied, e en i he ne e go ma ied; o ha he p omise was made, e en
i he speake did no make any p omise; o ha he ull English b eak as was o -
de ed, e en i nobody o de ed i . Wha we ind he e is he phan om ha haun ed
Aus in: a iew in which he pe o mance o he speech ac would ake place in he
hidden and p i a e space o he soul o he u e e , whe e he wo ds he u e ed ex-
204
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
e nally would be no hing bu allible and con ingen symp oms o a so o spi i u-
al, inne e en . Als on’s imagined b oom is inally no one else bu Hippoly us.
Once he has ejec ed hose cases o unin en ional speech ac s as ma ginal, un-
impo an , and p obably e en con adic o y, Als on conside s he possibili y o
ans o ming his own accoun in such a way ha e en hose cases would ha e hei
place:
Bu i we do ecognize unin en ional illocu iona y ac s, how could hey be ea ed in my
heo y? [...]
We can de ine a a ian o ‘R’; call i ‘R-U’ (‘U’ o ‘unin en ional’). I R’ing ha
p is delibe a ely pu ing onesel in such a posi ion ha one is subjec o co ec ion in
case o no -p, hen R-U’ing ha p is being in such a posi ion by i ue o one's u e ance,
hough no by delibe a ely pu ing onesel in ha posi ion. By subs i u ing ‘R-U’ o ‘R’
h oughou we can ans o m any analysis o an illocu iona y ac concep in o an analy-
sis o a concep ha applies indi e en ly o in en ional and unin en ional pe o mances.
The concep o being in he ele an no ma i e posi ion by i ue o u e ing S will be
he concep o , o example, p omising o do D, whe he in en ionally o unin en ional-
ly.[...]
I could ew i e all he analysis schema a in his o m, and i I el ha unin en ional
illocu iona y ac s we e o su icien impo ance I would do so. Bu since hey a e a
wo s nonexis en and a bes o ma ginal impo ance, I do no choose o p oceed in his
way (Als on 2000: 141-2).
The p oblem wi h his las wis in he a gumen is ha changing R o R-U in he
whole analysis would no jus be a modi ica ion o he o iginal e sion, bu a sim-
ple ejec ion o i , since he change would a ec Als on’s o iginal de ini ion o illo-
cu iona y ac . He had said ha an illocu iona y ac essen ially is a so o in en ional
ac —no a ma e o he u e e 's ecognizing an al eady exis ing s a e o a ai s, o
assuming i —whe eas a he end we would ha e he possibili y o a genuine speech
ac , wi h legi ima e no ma i e implica ions, ha is no in en ional a all. This s ep
would no jus in oduce a mino change in he heo y, as Als on seems o belie e.
On he con a y, he whole house o ca ds was s anding on his single claim: ha
he illocu iona y ac is wha i is because he speake in ends i o be so.
Als on e usal o in oduce his inal change in his analysis is explained by his
disdain o hose ma ginal cases—unin en ional illocu iona y ac s—whose unim-
po ance would no make i sensible o al e he whole sys em. Bu i is no laziness
wha p e en s Als on om aking ha s ep: i is a chi ec u al p udence. I we ook
his las idea se iously, we would ha e o ell he speake ’s in en ion o R apa
om he co ec illocu iona y desc ip ion o his ac ion; and, as we saw be o e, we
would also ha e o ell he co ec illocu iona y desc ip ion o he ac ion apa om
he social no ma i e e ec s ha i would ha e. In o he wo ds: we would ha e o
assume he whole collapse o Als on’s heo y.
In en ion and Responsibili y in Speech Ac s
205
Conclusion: he second pe son pe spec i e
Wi h his long discussion o Als on’s iews I ha e ied o a gue in a ou o wo
hesis ha a e opposed o he ones ha he de ends:
a) The discussion abou unhea d speech ac s showed us ha illocu iona y e -
ec s—and hus he e y pe o mance o he illocu iona y ac —is cons i u-
i ely dependen on he audience’s up ake. An unhea d speech ac would no
be a kind o speech ac —since hose u e ances would no p oduce any
change in he no ma i e con ex .
b) The discussion abou unin ended speech ac s p o ed ha wha makes he u -
e ance coun as a speech ac is he legi ima e a ibu ion o in en ions o he
speake by he pa o he hea e s. This legi imacy could ail, since i has o
be done om a pe spec i e which is always epis emically limi ed— he one
o he audience. Tha makes i is pe ec ly possible o concei e unin ended
speech ac s as a legi ima e cases o speech ac s—i.e., as e ec i e changes in
he no ma i e con ex . F om his poin o iew, unin ended speech ac s
would be a legi ima e ca ego y wi hin speech ac s ou cou .
In o he wo ds: by claiming ha a speech ac was unhea d we would imply ha i
ne e ook place as a speech ac ; whe eas by claiming ha a speech ac was unin-
en ional we would be quali ying he kind o speech ac ha did e ec i ely ake
place.
I ag ee wi h Als on on he idea ha he e is no way o unde s and he wo king
o speech ac s wi hou aking he idea o esponsibili y as a key poin . Bu wha is
needed is no Als on’s concep ion o R’ing, as he in en ional ac by which he
speake makes he sel esponsible o he wo ds. I would say ha esponsibili y
shows up la e : wi h he up ake. I am no esponsible o wha I mean , o o wha I
in ended o do wi h my wo ds, bu o wha ac ually I did, and o he se o legi i-
ma e expec a ions ha my wo ds p oduced in hose who ecei ed hem. Wha I
ha e o answe o a e my wo ds, no my p i y in en ions.
I ha e no been ying o p o e ha illocu iona y in en ions a e supe luous in
an accoun o speech ac s. On he con a y: he legi imacy o he hea e ’s de ec ion
o speech ac s pe o mance ely on c i e ia ha a e abou hese in en ions. I we
ook in en ions simply ou o he s o y we would be h owing he baby away, o-
ge he wi h he ba h wa e . I is c ucial o ou illocu iona y p ac ices ha u e anc-
es ul il c i e ia o he a ibu ion in en ional s a es, and i hey did no , hen he
p ac ice would loose i s meaning. Bu wha is ue o he p ac ice does no ha e o
be ue o each and e e y pe o mance wi hin ha p ac ice. I is ue ha p omises
canno be de ined as a ype o speech ac unless we ake in o accoun wha he
no mal in en ions o p omiso s a e. Bu he de ini ion o a oken p omise, ha is,
ou unde s anding o wha he e y occu ence o each and e e y p omise is, canno
depend on he exis ence o hose in en ions in he p i y ealms o p omiso s, since
o he wise we would be blind in he adsc ip ion o illocu iona y ac s o o he s.
206
Jesús Na a o-Reyes
I inally esul s ha he only way o o ce Hippoly us o keep his wo d is by
appealing o his wo ds hemsel es, no o his p i y in en ions, o o his pu a i e as-
sump ion o esponsibili y o hem. Illocu iona y ac s do no hold up because we
make ou sel es esponsible o wha we do while we a e doing i , bu because o h-
e s make us esponsible o wha we ha e done, once we ha e done i . The au ho i-
y o say i an ac was in en ional o no migh be ound in he i s pe son pe spec-
i e; bu he au ho i y o say i he ac i sel ook place—whe he in en ionally o
no —mus ely somewhe e else: in he pe spec i e o he second pe son, p ecisely
because i is epis emically limi ed.
Re e ences
Als on, William P. (2000). Illocu iona y Ac s and Sen ence Meaning. I haca: Co nell Uni e si y
P ess.
Aus in, John L. (1962). How o do hings wi h wo ds. Ed. J. O U mson. Ox o d: Cla endon P ess.
Gazda , Ge ald (1981). “Speech ac assignmen ”. In A. K. Joshi, B. L. Webbe & I. A. Sag (eds.),
Elemen s o Discou se Unde s anding (64-83). Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ha nish, Robe M. (2009). “In e nalism and Ex e nalism in Speech Ac Theo y”. Lodz Pape s in
P agma ics, 5:1, 9-31.
Moya, Ca los J. (1990). The Philosophy o Ac ion: an In oduc ion. Ox o d: Poli y-Blackwell.
Na a o-Reyes, Jesús (2010). “Speech Ac s, C i e ia and In en ions”. Lodz Pape s in P agma ics,
6:1, 145-170.
Sea le, John R. (1969). Speech Ac s: an Essay in he Philosophy o Language. Camb idge: Cam-
b idge Uni e si y P ess.
Spe be , Dan & Wilson, Dei d e (1986). Rele ance: Communica ion and Cogni ion. Ox o d:
Blackwell.
S awson, Pe e F. (1964). “In en ion and Con en ion in Speech Ac s”. The Philosophical Re iew,
73:4, 439-460.