Appendix (2)

Felicity Conditions
Felicity Conditions for Criticism
The speaker, S, says or does something that counts as a negative evaluation of the actions or attributes of the target, T, and: 1- S holds a negative opinion of the action or attribute . (Sincerity condition) 2- S has adequate grounds for his opinion. (Preparatory condition) 3- S has whatever qualifications are necessary (knowledge, training, access to pertinent information, etc.) in order to form an opinion on Ts actions or attributes. (Preparatory condition) 4- S has a right to evaluate Ts actions or attributes by virtue of being affected by them or by virtue of some special role; in either case, S must have some constructive intention. (Preparatory condition) 5- T may be held accountable for the action or attribute (i.e. it is dependent upon Ts skill and/or will). (Preparatory condition) (Jackson, 1986: 222)

Felicity Conditions for Blame

12(i) (ii) 3(i) (ii) 4Comprehensive conditions (CCs): The addresser should specify a particular addressee(s). Propositional content conditions (PCCs): A bad proposition P has been achieved; Some individual is responsible for the existence of the state of affairs. Preparatory conditions (PCs): The addresser has as evidence or a reason to blame (P/ addressee/addresser himself/ or another agent); A harmful effect has been received /or ongoing received by the addresser, and/ or the addressee and/ or another agent. Sincerity conditions (SCs): The addresser is discontent and believes that the state of affairs is bad and blameworthy.

188

5-

Essential conditions (ECs): The utterance counts as dissatisfaction or expression of blame to the effect that P represents the actual state of affairs. (Al-Khafaji, 2009: 86)

Felicity Conditions for Command

1- Propositional content rule: S predicates a future act A of H. 2- Preparatory rule: a. H is able to do A. b. S believes H is able to do A. c. S is in a position of authority over H. 3- Sincerity rule: S wants H to do A. 4- Essential rule: The utterance counts as an attempt to get H to do A in virtue of the authority of S over H. (Searle, 1969: 66)

Felicity Conditions for Statement

1- Propositional content rule: Any proposition P. 2- Preparatory rule: a. S has evidence (reasons, etc.) for the truth of P. b. It is not obvious to both S and H that H knows (does not need to be reminded of, etc.) P. 3- Sincerity rule: S believes P. 4- Essential rule: The utterance counts as an undertaking to the effect that P represents an actual state of affairs. (ibid.)

Felicity Conditions for Claim

1- S wishes H to believe that S believes the information contained in the locution by means of which the claim is made is true. 2- In performing a claim, S may be held to believe that his doing so is in the interests of H. A speaker commits him/herself to believing what is entailed by the content of that claim. 3- S believes that the truth value of the information given in his/her claim is a matter of knowledge, as opposed to experience or opinion, that is, it can be scientifically verified. The distinction is reflected for instance in the difference between introducing oneself and giving ones name. (Edmondson, 1981: 145; cited in Al-Khazali, 2009: 118)

189

Felicity Conditions for Advice

1- Propositional content rule: S predicates a future act A of H. 2- Preparatory rule: a. S has some reason to believe A will benefit H. b. It is not obvious to both S and H that H will do A in the normal course of events. 3- Sincerity rule: S believes A will benefit H. 4- Essential rule: The utterance counts as an undertaking to the effect that A is in Hs best interest. (Searle, 1969: 66)

Felicity Conditions for Suggestion

1- S wishes H to believe that S is in favour of Hs performing a future act A, as in the interests of H. 2- In making a suggest, S is assuming that it is not impossible that H will do A as a result of his making that suggest. 3- Suggests differ from requests as concerns the party S wishes H to believe s/he believes will benefit from the act A. Sometimes, the effect of the act A may be on both S and H; thus, strategy apparently plays a role i.e., S may wish H to believe A is in the interests of h, when in fact S believes A to be in his own interests. Then, it is supposed that in identifying an illocution as a request, or a suggest, unclear cases may arise. Moreover, a speaker may himself characterize as a suggest a locution which clearly has a requesting illocutionary function (and vice versa). (Edmondson, 1981: 141; cited in Al-Khazali, 2009: 108-9)