Channels, Fall 2018

Page 28 Yost • Speech Act of Naming Following this, I tested the various I-rules and subsequent conditions in the nine case studies. Here, I found that both of the conceptually necessary conditions were met in all nine passages. Additionally, U always had the authority within C to name, and successful naming occurred each time. However, as S was only recorded in three instances (see above), it could only be recorded as heard in those instances. As S was implied in the other instances though, I would again conclude that S was heard based on the success of the act. In all but two instances (2 Samuel 12:25 and Numbers 13:16), the circumstances exposed the need for E. While some commentaries offer potential explanations for this instance of naming by God and renaming by Moses, I did not see them directly in Scripture and therefore cannot confirm their presence. Nevertheless, based on the importance placed on names in the culture, the act would not have occurred without reason. This information can be found in Table 2 in the appendices. Discussion Based on my case studies, I stand by my initial schema of illocutionary rules, restated below. The conditions within the I-rules are included for easier reading. U O’d in uttering S iff in uttering S, U R’d that: 1. Conceptually necessary conditions for E. - X needs to be identifiable by means of a name - X must be a singular entity 2. U has the authority within C to produce E. 3. Conditions are appropriate for the exercise of that authority. - Someone must hear U O - The circumstances expose the need for E 4. By uttering S, U is bringing about E of X. The research I present here fits well within the current conversation as laid out in my literature review. Admittedly, I started from Alston’s framework (2000), but my own analysis proved to have result in the same understanding. One difference I noticed and think to be important is the presence of the community. While Arcadi (2013) mentions this as the source of authority, the act of naming that intends the henceforth use of the name requires a community to a greater degree. This fits with Korta and Perry’s (2011) theory of coco-referring. The community, then, is necessary for both the authority to name and the association of a name with a person. Additionally, in working with narrative, not every detail was recorded. However, I found it interesting to see that God’s speech was considered important enough to record, even in an act more regularly performed by humans. Walton (2001) similarly acknowledges God’s act of naming has greater power, even to determine the future. Perhaps this, along with the fact that he is God and not a man, accounts for the recorded presence of a naming sentence. While I did not focus on name meanings and reasons in my research, I still noticed some common threads. As mentioned in my literature review, some believe that names carry identity. However, I saw that while they do often offer at least a description of the receiver,