Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 22:3 (2014) ► pp.340–351

On the relationship between speech acts and psychological states

 | Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea
This paper defends a theory of speech act that I call concurrentism. It receives support from a psychological study and goes well with evolutionary theory. It sheds light on what the hearer believes when he hears an indicative sentence, what the speaker believes when he says an indicative sentence, what the speaker does after he says an indicative sentence contrary to what he believes, why Moore’s paradox occurs, why it is puzzling to say some variants of Moorean sentences, and why it is not absurd to say other variants of Moorean sentences. It will become clear that other things being equal, we believe that other people speak as they believe, and we speak in accordance with what we believe. It will also become clear that after we speak contrary to what we believe, we keep to ourselves the discrepancy between what we speak and what we believe, ceteris paribus.
Keywords: default desire, default belief, speech act, moore's paradox, moorean sentence
Published online: 29 September 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22.3.04par
References (20)
Audi, Robert. (1994). Dispositional Beliefs and Dispositions to Believe. Noûs, 28(4), 419–434. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Lyn R. (1995). Explaining Attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braithwaite, Richard B. (1932-1933). The nature of believing. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 331, 129–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bromwich, Danielle. (2010). Clearing conceptual space for cognitive motivational internalism. Philosophical Studies, 148(3), 343–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jonathan. (1992). An Essay on Belief and Acceptance. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. (1978). Brainstorms. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon, & Carlsmith, James. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 581, 203–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Ruth B. (1990). Some revisionary proposals about belief and believing. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 501, 132–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, George. (1944). Russell’s theory of descriptions. In Paul Schilpp (Ed.), The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (pp. 175–225). La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
. (1993). Moore’s paradox. In Thomas Baldwin (Ed.), G. E. Moore: Selected Writings. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Park, Seungbae. (2015). Accepting our best scientific theories. Filosofija. Sociologija, 26(3), 218–227.Google Scholar
Price, Henry. (1969). Belief. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard V.O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, Gilbert. (1949). The Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Frank P. (1931). The Foundations of Mathematics, and Other Logical Essays. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schwitzgebel, Eric. (2001). In-between believing. The Philosophical Quarterly, 511, 76–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2002). A phenomenal, dispositional account of belief. Noûs, 361, 249–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Travis, Charles. (2003). Unshadowed Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, John N. (2013). The completeness of the pragmatic solution to Moore’s paradox in belief: A reply to Chan. Synthese, 190(12), 2457–2476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Park, Seungbae
2019. The Disastrous Implications of the ‘English’ View of Rationality in a Social World. Social Epistemology 33:1 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.