Skip to main content
note
This page was translated from the German original, partly by machine. Some passages may read awkwardly or contain inaccuracies. When in doubt, please read the original.

The Language Game of Asserting

Real-life examples​

In everyday life we meet assertions at every turn:

  • "It will rain tomorrow", (I know the future)
  • "This restaurant has the best pizza in town", (I know every pizza)
  • "Inflation will fall next year", (I know the future of the stock market)
  • "Cannabis is more dangerous than alcohol", (I am a drug expert)
  • "People are selfish by nature." (I am a hobby anthropologist and sociologist)

Scientific theses, journalistic statements, political promises and everyday expressions of opinion, all of them operate within the language game of asserting.

What it aims at​

Whoever asserts wants to present a state of affairs as true or correct. Asserting is thus a linguistic act by which we relate to the world, convey knowledge and influence other people — not seldom asserting precisely what serves our own interest.

Unlike asking or commanding, assertions raise a claim to truth: they purport that things actually are as asserted. The goal can vary — from the pure passing on of information, through convincing others, to reassuring oneself.

Success criteria​

Whether an assertion is "successful" can be judged on three different levels, which should be kept apart:

1. Does the linguistic act succeed? (Is a seriously meant assertion made at all?)

  • The speaker means what he says and himself believes it to be true.
  • He can, when asked, give reasons or evidence.
  • The recipient understands that something is being asserted here — and not, say, asked, joked or commanded.

2. Is the assertion true? (A separate question — an assertion remains an assertion even if it is false.)

  • What is asserted corresponds to the facts, or is at least well grounded.

3. Does it achieve the intended effect? (What reaches the recipient is no longer in the speaker's hands.)

  • The recipient regards the assertion as credible.
  • It brings about what was intended (such as information or conviction).

These three levels often come apart: an assertion can succeed and still be false; it can be true and yet convince no one. Whoever thinks critically therefore asks separately:

    1. Is it seriously meant?
    1. Is it true?
    1. And why does it work?

Which standards apply depends strongly on context: in scientific discourse the testing is stricter than in everyday life. What passes among friends ("That's the best film of all time") would be objected to in an academic work.

How it can go wrong​

An assertion can fail in two fundamentally different ways — and both have nothing to do with whether what is asserted is true. (A false assertion is still an assertion; its falsity is a separate matter.)

The act does not properly come about at all when:

  • the assertion is too vague or ambiguous, so that it remains unclear what is actually being asserted.
  • the recipient does not recognize that anything is being asserted at all (for instance because it is misunderstood as a joke or a question).
  • the social context makes the assertion appear inappropriate and it is therefore not taken seriously.

The act does succeed, but is insincere when:

  • the asserter himself does not believe what he says (in the extreme case: the lie).
  • he has no reasons or evidence whatsoever for his assertion and could give none.

To be distinguished from this is credibility: an assertion by a speaker who enjoys no trust or expertise does succeed — it is just less likely to be believed. Finally, especially tricky are assertions that rest on false premises or cannot be checked at all.

How it is abused​

Abuse can be captured precisely in the terms introduced above: the form of the assertion is used, but the duty of sincerity and justification is deliberately violated. This shows on two levels.

Distortion of the truth content:

  • Deliberate lies and invented facts
  • Half-truths that omit important facts
  • Assertions presented as facts although they are only opinions

Strategic discourse tactics:

  • The spreading of rumours or conspiracy theories
  • Countering criticism with a counter-accusation instead of answering it ("whataboutism")
  • Flooding with so many assertions that careful checking becomes impossible ("firehose of falsehood")

In politics and advertising, assertions are often deployed strategically to achieve certain effects, regardless of their truth content.

Social role​

Asserting fulfils essential social functions:

  • It enables the exchange of knowledge and collective learning
  • It serves social positioning and identity formation ("As a scientist, I assert...")
  • It structures discourses and enables rationally conducted debates
  • It creates shared realities and a common horizon of understanding
  • It is fundamental to scientific, legal and political processes

In modern democratic societies, the ability to examine assertions critically and to make well-founded assertions of one's own is a central competence of mature citizens. At the same time, the social negotiation over which assertions count as credible and who may "assert" at all is a field of constant social contestation.

Literature​

The analysis of speech acts in general, and of asserting as a linguistic act in particular, is treated among others in these relevant works:

  • Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1953; German Philosophische Untersuchungen). — Coins the concept of the language game: the meaning of an expression lies in its use, not in an abstract definition.
  • J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (1962; German Zur Theorie der Sprechakte, Reclam 1972). — Founds speech act theory and distinguishes the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary act, as well as the felicity conditions (misfires vs. abuses).
  • John R. Searle, Speech Acts (1969; German Sprechakte. Ein sprachphilosophischer Essay, Suhrkamp 1971). — Systematizes the felicity conditions of asserting (preparatory, sincerity and essential condition) and the direction of fit between word and world.
  • Robert B. Brandom, Making It Explicit (1994; German Expressive Vernunft, Suhrkamp 2000). — Understands asserting as a move in the "game of giving and asking for reasons": whoever asserts undertakes a commitment for which reasons can be demanded.