The problem of uptake
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21335629 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joel de Lara (0000-0003-3227-6725, Georgetown University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 67 |
| Issue | 10 |
| Pages | 3893-3929 |
| Publication date | 2024-11-25 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Inquiry (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0020-174X • E-ISSN: 1502-3923 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/0020174x.2022.2074880 |
| OpenAlex | W4281288215 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 25 |
To perform an illocutionary act – e.g. to apologise – is it necessary, sufficient, or irrelevant that a hearer understand you to be performing that act? This issue is sometimes called the ‘problem of uptake’. Famously, Austin’s inaugural account makes uptake necessary for illocutionary force. For decades, critics have objected to this view: Some have sought to show that uptake is irrelevant; others have argued that uptake is important though not essential; while still others have argued that uptake is necessary though must be radically reframed. Nevertheless, it is widely agreed that there is a problem of uptake in Austin. In this paper, I contend that this view is wrong. Austinian uptake, I argue, is essential; yet, contra the standard reading, it is not synonymous with understanding. Uptake is a narrow criterion pertaining to conventional-linguistic competencies, which rules out specific kinds of misunderstanding, not misunderstanding überhaupt. The importation of non-Austinian assumptions about uptake from subsequent speech act theorists – specifically, the mis-equivocation of uptake with understanding a speaker’s intention – I show, has muddied the water. This paper offers a novel reconsideration and salvaging of uptake and its significance, whose stakes I elucidate through intervention in the fraught issue of conceptualising sexual consent
Epistemology · Equivocation · Linguistics · Reading (process) · Sociology · Freedom of Expression and Defamation · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Philosophy · Psychology · Sexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Silencing Speech
How To Do Things With Words
Pornography and Sexist Attitudes Among Heterosexuals
A Plea for Excuses
Freedom of Speech Acts? A Response to Langton
The Vulnerability of the Ordinary
Meaning
Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts
Intention and Convention in Speech Acts
Meaning and Force
Conventions and the Understanding of Speech Acts
Foundations of speech act theory
Speech Acts
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,33 |
| Citation span | 2023 - 2024 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |