Abstract

In „Illokutionäre Akte und Konventionalität" (2000) I argue that the speech-act models of Searle and Bach & Harnish mistakenly reconstruct Austin's term „illocutionary act". The issue of the present article is to provide terms for a more adequate analysis of „illocutionary act" in Austin's sense. Searle's concept of „counts-as"-rules contains important relations to Austin's „conventional consequences". Bach & Hamish have made explicit that „counts-as"-rules and therefore „conventional facts" are to be explained by something like „mutual belief in a community or group". The terms „illocutionary convention", ,,illocutionary intention" and ,,conventional fact" are determined based on these thoughts.