A Speech-Act Perspective on the Rules of Assertion

Philosophical debates on assertion norms advance different rules for when assertions count as proper or warranted. In this paper, I show that in order to resolve these debates, engagement with speech act theory can be fruitful. In particular, a speech act may be infelicitous or 'unhappy' for different and mutually independent reasons. Specifically, an assertion may be defective either for reasons concerning the epistemic position of the speaker, or for reasons concerning the state of the world. The speaker may be held responsible for the former but not for the latter. The same distinction also applies to other speech acts. If all participants in the debate were to acknowledge that an assertion may be improper for different reasons, the discussion would lose its rationale.