Page 65 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

42 Communication and Evolution of Society

propositional components in the formation and transformation
of speech actions. This uncoupling is a condition for the differ-
entiation of the double structure of speech, that is, for the separa-
tion of two communicative levels on which speaker and hearer
must simultaneously come to an understanding if they want to
communicate their intentions to one another. I would distinguish
(1) the level of zmtersubjectivity on which speaker and hearer,
through illocutionary acts, establish the relations that permit them
to come to an understanding with one another, and (2) the /evel
of propositional content which is communicated. Corresponding
to the relational and the content aspects in which every utterance
can be analyzed, there are (in the standard form) the illocution-
ary and the propositional components of the speech act. The
illocutionary act fixes the sense in which the propositional content
is employed, and the act-complement determines the content that
is understood “as something...” in the communicative function
specified. (The hermeneutic “as” can be differentiated on both
communicative levels. With a proposition “P” an identifiable
object, whose existence is presupposed, can be characterized as
something—e.g., as a “red,” “soft,” or “ideal’’ object. In con-
nection with an illocutionary act, that is, through being embedded
in a speech act, this propositional content can in turn be uttered
as something—e.g., as a command or assertion.) A basic feature
of language is connected with this double structure of speech,
namely its inherent reflexivity. The standardized possibilities for
directly and indirectly mentioning speech only make explicit a
self-reference that is already contained in every speech act. In
filling out the double structure of speech participants in dialogue
communicate on two levels simultaneously. They combine com-
munication of a content with communication about the role in
which the communicated content is used. The expression com-
munication about might be misleading here because it could be
associated with metalanguage and would then bring to mind an
idea of language levels according to which at every higher level
metalinguistic statements about the object language of the next
lower level can be made. But the concept of a hierarchy of lan-
guage was introduced for formal languages, in which just that
reflexivity of ordinary language is lacking. Moreover, in a meta-