Speech acts, responsibility and commitment in poetry

Philosophy has tended to regard poetry primarily in terms of truth and falsity, assuming that its business is to state or describe states of affairs. Speech act theory transforms philosophical debate by regarding poetry in terms of action, showing that its business is primarily to do things. The proposal can sharpen our understanding of types of poetry; examples of the ‘Chaucer-Type’ and its variants demonstrate this. Objections to the proposal can be divided into those that relate to the agent of actions associated with a poem, those that relate to the actions themselves, and those that relate to the things done. These objections can be answered. A significant consequence of the proposal is that it gives prominence to issues of responsibility and commitment. This prominence brings philosophical debate usefully into line with contemporary poetry, whose concern with such issues is manifest in characteristic forms of anxiety.

Incense and insensibility: Austin on the 'non-seriousness' of poetry

What is at stake when J. L. Austin calls poetry ‘non-serious’, and sidelines it in his speech act theory? (I). Standard explanations polarize sharply along party lines: poets (e.g. Geoffrey Hill) and critics (e.g. Christopher Ricks) are incensed, while philosophers (e.g. P. F. Strawson; John Searle) deny cause (II). Neither line is consistent with Austin's remarks, whose allusions to Plato, Aristotle and Frege are insufficiently noted (III). What Austin thinks is at stake is confusion, which he corrects apparently to the advantage of poets (IV). But what is actually at stake is the possibility of commitment and poetic integrity. We should reject what Austin offers (V).

Memento mori: the uses of the future imperative in the Carmina Latina Epigraphica

This paper offers an examination of the use(s) of the future imperative in the Latin verse inscriptions. Following introductory considerations about speech act theory, the use of directives, and politeness (with special emphasis on the Carmina Latina Epigraphica), the paper gives an overview of relevant instances. It presents an argument in favour of a (re-)interpretation of the Latin future imperative as a mode to express deontic and thetic arrangements with little immediacy. Additionally, it is possible to detect traces of a deliberate use of the future imperative as a means of marking linguistic register in contexts where it otherwise, if following a more traditional concept of the future imperative, would seem out of place