規約型vs.意圖型的話語施事行為：「話語施事失能」如何可能？

Conventional Illocutions vs. Intentional Illocutions: How Is Illocutionary Disablement Possible?

藍騰（Raw Langton）採取奧斯丁（John L. Austin）「話語施事行為」概念，並認為色情刊物會使得婦女遭遇「話語施事失能」（illocutionary disablement），而且婦女難以擺脫「話語施事失能」。對此，傑克森（Daniel Jacobson）認為一旦我們採取史特勞森（P.F. Strawson）的「話語施事行為」概念，則色情刊物並不會使得婦女遭遇「話語施事失能」。在本文中，筆者將主張：(i)即使我們採取史特勞森的「話語施事行為」概念，婦女還是可能會遭遇「話語施事失能」，因此傑克森的批評無法成立；(ii)即使如此，婦女卻可以輕易擺脫「話語施事失能」，可見藍騰的「婦女難以襬脫『話語施事失能』」此一主張，無法成立。

As Rae Langton has famously argued, relying heavily on J. L. Austin’s How to Do Things with Words, pornography silences women and causes women to be illocutionarily disabled in some sexual contexts so that they are unable to refuse sex by saying‘no’. Call this view the Silencing thesis. Daniel Jacobson thinks that the Silencing thesis must be wrong because pornography will not cause women to be illocutionarily disabled if we follow P. F. Strawson’s speech act theory. In this paper, I defend the Silencing thesis. I will argue that, following Strawson’s speech act theory, pornography will also silence women. Nevertheless, I will argue that women can get rid of illocutionary disablement easily if we follow Strawson’s speech act theory.