On Pragmatics, Exercitive Speech Acts and Pornography

• Authors: Mary McGowan
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Suppose that a suspect being questioned by the police says, "I think I'd better talk to a lawyer." Whether that suspect has invoked her right to an attorney depends on which particular speech act(s) her utterance is. If she is merely thinking aloud about what she ought to do, then she has not invoked that right. If, on the other hand, she has thereby requested a lawyer, she has. Similarly, suppose that an unhappily married man says "I want my wife dead." Whether he has thereby solicited his wife's murder depends on which particular speech act(s) his utterance is. If he is merely describing his desires, he has committed no crime. If, by contrast, he has thereby hired an assassin, he has. As one can see, experts on speech acts (e.g. philosophers, linguists, psychologists and sociologists) have a lot to say about various issues in the law.I believe that expertise in speech act theory also illuminates various issues regarding free speech. In what follows, we consider how speech act theory may apply to certain arguments regarding the free speech status of pornography. In particular, we consider several speech act accounts of MacKinnon's claim that pornography subordinates women, but, before turning to such accounts, some background is offered.

Keywords

EN

Pragmatics; pornography; speech acts; conversational exercitives

• Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
• Journal: Lodz Papers in Pragmatics
• Year: 2009
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 133-155

Dates

published

2009-01-01

online

2009-04-30

Contributors

author

Mary McGowan

• Wellesley College

References

• Austin, John. How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press, 1962.
• Langton, Rae. "Speech acts and unspeakable acts." Philosophy & Public Affairs 22.4 (1993): 293-330.
• Langton, Rae. and Caroline West. "Scorekeeping in a pornographic language game." Australasian Journal of Philosophy 77.3 (1999): 300-322, doi: 10.1080/00048409912349061.[Crossref]
• Lewis, David. "Scorekeeping in a language game." In Philosophical Papers Volume I, New York: Oxford University Press: 233-249, 1983, doi: 10.1093/0195032047.003.0013.[Crossref]
• MacKinnon, Catharine. "Francis Biddle's sister: Pornography, civil rights and speech." In Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, edited by Catharine MacKinnon, 163-197. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987.
• MacKinnon, Catharine. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
• MacKinnon, Catharine. and Andrea Dworkin (eds.). Harms' Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
• Maitra, Ishani and Mary Kate McGowan. "The limits of free speech: Pornography and the question of coverage." Legal Theory 13.1 (2007): 41-68, doi: 10.1017/S1352325207070024.[Crossref]
• McGowan, Mary Kate. "Conversational exercitives and the force of pornography." Philosophy & Public Affairs 31 (2003): 155-189, doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00155.x.[Crossref]
• McGowan, Mary Kate. "Conversational exercitives: Something else we do with our words." Linguistics and Philosophy 27.1 (2004): 93-111, doi: 10.1023/B:LING.0000010803.47264.f0.[Crossref]
• McGowan, Mary Kate. "On pornography: MacKinnon, speech acts and ‘false’ construction." Hypatia 20.3 (2005): 22-49, doi: 10.2979/HYP.2005.20.3.22.[Crossref]
• McGowan, Mary Kate. "Oppressive speech." Australasian Journal of Philosophy (2009, forthcoming), doi: 10.1080/00048400802370334.[WoS][Crossref]
• Searle, John. "A taxonomy of illocutionary acts." In Expression and Meaning, edited by John Searle, 1-29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
• Young, Iris Marion. "Five faces of oppression." In Rethinking Power, edited by Thomas Wartenberg, 174-195. New York: SUNY Press, 1992.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10016-009-0002-1