Some might argue that the modern meaning of the phrase “accept responsibility” is irksome in that it has only illocutionary significance; without the announcement that X has “accepted responsibility”, one would have the very devil of a job working out that it had happened. Might I suggest that what we ought to do is to coin a generalised version of Douglas Adams’ useful neologism “dogdyke” from his excellen book, “The Meaning of Liff”:
DOGDYKE (vb.)
Of dog-owners, to adopt the absurd pretence that the animal shitting in the gutter is nothing to do with them.
Onward to hell we all go …
This would be a good time to raise a a beef about “refute,” as in “The Vice-President refuted his critics.” He may have “offered a reuttal,” or “told them to go —- themselves.” But the question of refutation is more difficult. It isn’t illocutationary to the Vice-President, as in “I refute you, sir.” But surely some assertions are refutations, even if others are not. Is this simply a matter for the anonymous reviewers at the publishing house?
As for locutionary significance, the following definition will appear in the next edition of the Oxford English Dictionary:
‘To accept responsibility, vtr:
1. To deny any causal relationship with a regrettable act or event in which one has participated, and to announce one’s refusal to be in any way sanctioned or inconvenienced as a result of said act or event, whilst simultaneously establishing the morally admirable nature of one’s character.
‘Example: The court was told that Sid Smith, 19, robbed Mrs Lewis, 83, of her pension outside the Post Office. ‘I fully accept responsibility for this incident’, shouted Smith, before running off to blow the money on drugs.’
responsibabble (noun)
Of politicians, who don’t want the shit to stick to them when they make formal announcements to “accept responsibility” for something.
“I am responsibabble.”
Sorry to troll CT’s comments but this is for the good of the world!
Hey Friends,
We’re looking for 2 to 3 new bloggers at our site PoliticalStrategy.org.
It’s time to take our site to the next level and we would like to make the site a powerful presence in the progressive Blogsphere.
If you’re interested, then please check out the site…browse around a bit and then drop us a line at tball@politicalstrategy.org
Please be sure to tell us:
· How active you would like to be (e.g. posting every day, three times per week, etc.)
· About your background in politics, policy, writing. (Of course no professional experience is required)
· About your interest in being part of a blog and in particular a group blog.
· Where we can find a sample of your writing (e.g. perhaps at your own site, in a Dkos diary, etc.)
From there we will contact you with further details.
Thank you very much.
The way philosophers and chess players (and I assume buce) uses it, “refute” means “show to be wrong.”
[I am now going to start speaking very sloppily on stuff I should know better.)
That’s not illocutionary because it’s not a question merely of the intentions behind the speech act—I can intend to refute you as hard as I want without necessarily succeeding. In this way it’s like “offend” as opposed to “insult”; whether I insult you is arguably a question of whether I say something nasty about you with the intention of doing so; whether I offend you depends on whether you are in fact offended. But “refute” doesn’t quite seem perlocutionary to me, because showing someone to be wrong isn’t an effect of stating correctly that they’re wrong; it’s more of a success verb like “prove.”
Lots of people use “refute” to mean “rebut,” which I think is illocutionary; you rebut me if you say something that is intended to show me wrong, whether or not you actually do show me wrong.
Sorry to troll CT’s comments but it is for the good of the world!
Hey Friends,
We’re looking for 2 to 3 new bloggers at our site PoliticalStrategy.org.
It’s time to take our site to the next level and we would like to make the site a powerful presence in the progressive Blogsphere.
If you’re interested, then please check out the site…browse around a bit and then drop us a line at tball@politicalstrategy.org
Please be sure to tell us:
· How active you would like to be (e.g. posting every day, three times per week, etc.)
· About your background in politics, policy, writing. (Of course no professional experience is required)
· About your interest in being part of a blog and in particular a group blog.
· Where we can find a sample of your writing (e.g. perhaps at your own site, in a Dkos diary, etc.)
From there we will contact you with further details.
Thank you very much.
It doesn’t happen just in the English language. It seems to be a universal shift in meaning. Maybe a brief has been sent out to all the countries in the war-on-terror alliance. Actually, I have a feeling this new meaning of “accepting responsibilities” has been around far longer. It is rumoured that even Caligula once declared he had “accepted his responsibilities”.
I’m trying to highlight the cultural value of this practice, you know. There has to be a grand history behind it that we’re not aware of but that gives it a secret dignity we, uneducated mobs, cannot appreciate.
Matt W.: You certainly can uninentionally insult someone. Data-point: There’s an old, only somewhat flip definition of a gentleman as one who never unintetionally insults someone.
Seems like it started with that ultimate Reagan-era martyr, Oliver North.
I caught an NYT headline using “refute” for “deny” earlier this year. But they fixed it, and my link now points to the generic Iraq story of the day anyway.
I’m not quite sure that it is completely regular and productive. This might depend on what type of English you speak.
So,
There were ten dogs. I will accept a dog.
?There were ten responsibilities. ?I will accept a responsibility.
?There were ten grasses. *I will accept a grass.
bza, that’s true. I wasn’t picking the best example of illocutionary effects, even though “offend” is a good example of a perlocutionary effect. Maybe I should go with “argue [that]” vs. “convince”—arguing is just a matter of your intentions, perhaps, but convincing requires bringing the hearer to belief. And then “prove” is like “refute” (not surprising, since a refutation is a proof that not-p)—you can’t prove something just be intending to, but it doesn’t seem (to me) like an effect of your argument either.
This is probably well discussed in the literature somewhere.
Here the passive voice is fundamental; note the difference:
-“A misleading report was published. No one is to blame.”
-“X and Y published a misleading report. No one is to blame.”
The second is a bit harder to get by.
Nice reference to the great Meaning of Liff by the way. All essential words…
Going on stage and “taking responsibility” requires the sort of theatrical suspension of disbelief that allows one to accept Bush as a Texan rancher, who is, oddly, shy of horses.
Ken Lay, George Bush, Tony Blair are “responsible” to exactly the extent that their culpability falls short of the prison door. Lay at least may have lost a little bit of money because of his misfeasance. May Bush and Blair profit by his example.
Lookithat. Speech Acts rear their crazy heads. To answer Chris’ implicit question from the linked-to thread (which I sadly missed), yes Speech Acts are still taught in Linguistics under the rubric of Pragmatics (at least at the University of Washington), and I fondly remember the thesis I wrote exploring a grand unified theory of deception as false assertions — a consequent of Searle’s theory that all speech acts are a bundle of assertions and Grice’s Converstaional Maxims which become implied assertions in the model. Ah, those were the days.
For what it’s worth, the canonical speech act is promise.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review