3.

THE EXPRESSION OF ILLOCUTIONARY FORCE

The preceding chapter focused on directives as a type of speech act. The present
chapter deals with the linguistic properties of directive utterances. In section 3.1
I will sketch in a general way the complex nature of the relationship between
linguistic form and speech act function, and indicate the various positions one can
take in describing this relationship. The most common approach, which regards
the sentence types as the literal expression forms of illocutionary force, is
critically discussed in 3.2. On the basis of the conclusions that are drawn in this
section I will outline in 3.3 my own views with respect to the expression of illocu-
tionary force and the ways in which syntactic, semantic, and lexical properties
may contribute to it. These views will take more detailed shape in section 3.4,
which deals with the ,expression of directive illocutionary force and contains an
overview of the variety of directive expressions that are found in the Latin corpus
on which the present study is based. I will conclude this chapter by briefly
discussing in 3.5 the role of implicitness and conventionality in the expression of
directives.

3.1 Linguistic form and speech act function

Speech acts are performed by means of utterances. Few people will raise
objections to this statement, nor will they object to the - slightly less trivial -
statement that the speech act function of an utterance is at least to some extent
related to properties of this utterance. The actual nature of the relationship
between utterances and the speech acts that are performed by means of them is,
however, by no means an uncontroversial issue.
The issue of the relationship between linguistic form and speech act function
has been first introduced into linguistics in a systematic way by Searle (1969).1

1. Occasional observations have been made before with respect to the relationship between certain
formal properties of utterances and certain speech act functions (cf. e.g. Kiihner-Stegmann's
observation on the Latin imperative mood that was quoted in section 2.1.1). Austin also briefly refers
to 'devices that playa role in expressing illocutionary function' (mood, intonational features, adverbs,
64 illocutionary expression

In Searle's view, speech acts can be analysed in terms of an illocutionary force,

which operates on a propositional content. Accordingly, Searle proposes to distin-
guish "two (not necessarily separate) elements in the syntactic structure of the
sentence, which we might call the propositional indicator and the illocutionary
force indicator. (... ) The illocutionary force indicator shows how the proposition
is to be taken, or to put it in another way, what illocutionary force the utterance
is to have" (Searle 1969: 30)? He goes on to list a number of 'Illocutionary Force
Indicating Devices' (IFIDs) in English, viz. word order, stress, intonation contour,
punctuation, the mood of the verb, and the so-called performative verbs.
The most important point of Searle's statement is that it explicitly offers the
possibility of linking the illocutionary force (i.e. the speech act function) to
linguistic properties of the utterances involved. 3 Various problems arise, however,
when one wants to establish the ways in which individual linguistic properties
function as illocutionary force indicating devices.
In the first place, as is also pointed out by Searle (1969: 70-71), there is not
a strict one-to-one relationship between the speech act functions and linguistic
forms of utterances. One and the same expression may be used to perform, in
different contexts, various speech acts, and, conversely, various expressions can
be used to perform one and the same speech act. Thus, as will be discussed in
more detail in chapter 7, the interrogative Latin sentence etiam astas 'are you
standing still?' is used in (1) to perform an expressive speech act by means of
which the speaker expresses his disapproval of the addressee's behaviour (viz.
standing still) at the moment of speaking, whereas in (2) the same sentence is
used to perform a directive speech act, by means of which the speaker attempts
to get the addressee to display this behaviour.

(1) TR: sed tu, etiamne astas nec quae dico optemperas?
TH: quid faciam?
TR: cave respexis, fuge, [atque] operi caput

connecting particles, gestures, and circumstances of the utterances; Austin 1962: 73-76). However,
none of these are serious attempts at dealing with illocutionary expression in a systematic way.
2. This distinction is represented by Searle as: F (p), "where the variable "F" takes iJlocutionary force
indicating devices as values and "p" takes expressions for propositions". (Searle 1969: 31).
3. Note that Searle's speaking of 'elements in the syntactic structure' reflccts the Transfonnational
Grammar view then predominant, in which all linguistic properties are reduced to syntax. Some of the
IFIDs listed by him would, in my opinion, rather qualify as semantic (e.g. verbal mood) or lexical (e.g.
performative verbs) than as syntactic elements. I therefore prefer to speak of linguistic properties.