The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

An empirical investigation of intuitions about uptake

An empirical investigation of intuitions about uptake
An empirical investigation of intuitions about uptake
Since Austin’s introduction of the locutionary-illocutionary-perlocutionary distinction, it has been a matter of debate within speech act theory whether illocutionary acts like promising, warning, refusing and telling require audience ‘uptake’ in order to be performed. Philosophers on different sides of this debate have tried to support their positions by appealing to hypothetical scenarios, designed to elicit intuitive judgements about the role of uptake. However, philosophers’ intuitions appeared to remain deadlocked, while laypeople’s intuitions have not yet been probed. To begin rectifying that, we ran two experiments probing lay intuitions about the implications of uptake failure. Overall, we found that participants’ responses were skewed towards agreement that speech acts were performed, despite the lack of uptake. There were, however, significant differences across the four different speech act types we investigated (with the highest levels of agreement found for refusing, followed by warning, then telling, and finally promising). We also obtained evidence of complex effects relating to the (high or low) stakes involved in the scenarios. While this study only represents an initial exploration of intuitions about uptake, our results form a basis for further research into their nature and significance, across a range of speech acts, scenarios, and experimental designs.
1502-3923
Fisher, Sarah A.
add0e184-4c4b-4944-a238-8e6aa53d159b
Francis, Kathryn B.
ed312567-7819-4f1a-bef0-f0abc1c37c25
Townsend, Leo
8f4f19b2-8d93-4ce5-a772-56a758369dc0
Fisher, Sarah A.
add0e184-4c4b-4944-a238-8e6aa53d159b
Francis, Kathryn B.
ed312567-7819-4f1a-bef0-f0abc1c37c25
Townsend, Leo
8f4f19b2-8d93-4ce5-a772-56a758369dc0

Fisher, Sarah A., Francis, Kathryn B. and Townsend, Leo (2023) An empirical investigation of intuitions about uptake. Inquiry. (doi:10.1080/0020174x.2023.2220359).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Since Austin’s introduction of the locutionary-illocutionary-perlocutionary distinction, it has been a matter of debate within speech act theory whether illocutionary acts like promising, warning, refusing and telling require audience ‘uptake’ in order to be performed. Philosophers on different sides of this debate have tried to support their positions by appealing to hypothetical scenarios, designed to elicit intuitive judgements about the role of uptake. However, philosophers’ intuitions appeared to remain deadlocked, while laypeople’s intuitions have not yet been probed. To begin rectifying that, we ran two experiments probing lay intuitions about the implications of uptake failure. Overall, we found that participants’ responses were skewed towards agreement that speech acts were performed, despite the lack of uptake. There were, however, significant differences across the four different speech act types we investigated (with the highest levels of agreement found for refusing, followed by warning, then telling, and finally promising). We also obtained evidence of complex effects relating to the (high or low) stakes involved in the scenarios. While this study only represents an initial exploration of intuitions about uptake, our results form a basis for further research into their nature and significance, across a range of speech acts, scenarios, and experimental designs.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 29 May 2023
Published date: 16 June 2023

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 495975
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/495975
ISSN: 1502-3923
PURE UUID: 433c1da9-2c6e-42e8-9c95-fc3cee8c7f30
ORCID for Leo Townsend: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-5992-162X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 28 Nov 2024 17:45
Last modified: 30 Nov 2024 03:17

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Sarah A. Fisher
Author: Kathryn B. Francis
Author: Leo Townsend ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×