Written Assignment - Hearsay

Decide which of the following out-of-court statements would be excluded as evidence by the hearsay rule.
In all cases, the person making the statement is not in court but his or her utterance is offered by a third person who is the witness.
For your decisions give reasons based on speech-act theory (e.g. the utterance is locutionary). Don't just answer "yes" or "no".
 

  Issue: Whether X might have entered into an improper agreement with Y.
X's statement to Y: "If you give me $50, I'll write your term paper for you."

Not hearsay: Commissive illocution with a condition precedent (that proposes an exchange of a service for money).

  1. Issue: Whether X and Y had entered into a contract to exchange mutual services.


X's statement to Y: "I will wash your car every Friday, if you will mow my lawn on Saturdays."

Not hearsay: Commissive illocution; the statement proposes an exchange of services, a bona fide contract; note that we are not asking about the nature of the services, only that there is an offer.
 

  1. Issue: That X did not know the hour of the final exam.


X asked Y: "What time is the final exam?"

Not hearsay: A question is not a statement, so it is never hearsay. As a speech act it is an implicit directive. Also the issue concerns knowledge (state of mind) of X, which is another reason it is not hearsay.
 

  1. Issue: Had X promised Y a lifetime of bliss and of joy?


X's statement to Y, the day after their wedding: "I never promised you an easy life."

Hearsay: Assertive (remember that a past tense commissive ("I promised") always functions as an assertive; notice also that the propositional content corresponds to the issue. The expression "an easy life" is metaphorical for "bliss, joy, happiness, the good life, etc."
 

  1. Issue: Had X used vulgar language in speaking to Y?


X's statement to Y: "You're a f---ing bitch."

Not hearsay: Although this is an assertive it is not hearsay, because the propositional content ("you are a f---ing  bitch") does not correspond to the issue; we are interested in the locutionary properties of the utterance (i.e. we are looking at the language of the statement; these are the kinds of English words that most people consider to be vulgar)

  1. Issue: Had X committed himself to have dinner with Y?


X's statement to Y: "I invite you to have dinner with me tonight."

Not hearsay: Commissive illocution - the words "I invite" (and whatever follows) are words of commitment

  1. Issue: That X and Y are not engaged.


X's statement to Y: "I intend to marry your cousin Rachel."

This one is tricky. Some would say this is hearsay; others that it is not. Technically, you might think that this ought to be hearsay, because the propositional content expresses the very issue one is trying to prove (i.e. if X intends to marry Rachel, then X must not be engaged to Y). However, in a real court situation this utterance would probably be allowed in either because it is not hearsay (because it shows intent or state of mind, which can be argued for under a speech-act analysis) or else, if it is hearsay, then it would be allowed in under the broad exception to the hearsay rule for statements showing intent or state of mind. (I mention this problem of analysis  in case any lawyers are looking at this site.)
 

  1. Issue: Was the marriage between the King and Queen ever consummated?


The Queen's statement: "The King and I never slept together as husband and wife."

Hearsay: Assertive illocution; the propostional content speaks directly to the issue.
 

  1. Issue: Whether the paper that Y turned in to her professor was her own work.


X's statement to Y: "If you give me $60, I'll write your term paper for you."

Tricky. Although we have here an offer (a commissive illocution), the issue asks nothing about an offer or commitment; the issue is concerned only with the paper Y turned in. The second clause of the propositional content states "I'll write your term paper for you" (i.e. it states that somebody else will write the paper for Y); hence this would not be Y's work, and since this part of the propositional content matches up with the issue, we would have a hearsay problem. On the other hand, we do have here an unambiguous example of a commissive illocution and the corresponding mental state of intention; since intention is a state of mind, this would probably be allowed as circumstantial evidence that the paper was probably not the work of Y.

  1. Issue: To show that X is psychic.


X's statement: "There will be a major earthquake in 6 months."

Not hearsay: Assertive; but we're not interested in the propositiona content of what it asserts (i.e. that there will be an earthquake in 6 months), but rather we're interested in the locutionary aspect of the utterance, the wording of the statement; asssertions about dire or fortuitous future events (i.e. predictions) are the kinds of statements that psychics make; in no way do we care whether or not that prediction is true.

  1. Issue: To prove that X's brakes were faulty.


X's statement on leaving the house that morning: "My brakes are bad."

Hearsay: Assertive illocution; the propositional content and the issue fit or match.

  1. Issue: Whether X had been threatened by Y.


Y's statement to X: "If you come on my property for any reason whatsoever, I'll send my German shepherd after you."

Not hearsay: This utterance is a commissive illocution (a threat) from Y's perspective, but the issue asks about X's perspective. What Y said caused X to feel threatened; hence, it is perlocutionary.

  1. Issue: Whether X and Y had dinner together later that night.


X's statement to Y: "I invite you to have dinner with me tonight."

Another tricky one. Here we have a commissive illocution, but we are not asking about whether an invitation was extended (in which case it would not be hearsay [see 6. above]). To ways to argue this. First way: Here we are directly zeroing in on the propositional content ("to have dinner with me tonight"), which corresponds to the issue, so it would be hearsay. Second way: By inviting Y to dinner one could say X intended (state of mind) to have dinner with Y, which might squeak by as state-of-mind.

  1. Issue: Whether Y owns a German shepherd.


Y's statement to X: "If you come on my property for any reason whatsoever, I'll send my German shepherd after you."

Hearsay: Although this is a type of commissive it is not being used for its illocutionary property of the making of a threat; instead it is being offered for something asserted within its propositional content ("my German shepherd" asserts that Y owns a German shepherd), which corresponds to the issue; for that reason it is hearsay.  Would it still be hearsay had the issue been whether Y had ordered his German shepherd to go after X?

  1. Issue: Whether X believed that his brakes were faulty.


X's statement on leaving the house that morning: "My brakes are bad."

Not hearsay: Assertive/Belief. The issue is concerned with state of mind (belief) of the declarant (i.e. whether he was aware of the possibility of having faulty brakes), and not whether the brakes were actually faulty.

  1. Issue: That X did not plan to become engaged to Y.


X's statement to Y: "I intend to marry your cousin Rachel."

Similar analysis as that of 7. above.

  1. Issue: Whether X had extended an invitation to Y.


X's statement to Y: "I invite you to have dinner with me tonight.

Not hearsay: Commissive illocution. Extending an invitation is committing oneself.

  1. Issue: Whether the Queen had ever gained consciousness following a cerebral hemorrhage.


The Queen's statement: "The King and I never slept together as husband and wife."

Not hearsay: Assertive that is being offered for its locution; it doesn't matter what the queen said, so long as she said something (i.e. used language) to show she was conscious.
 

  1. Issue: Had X promised Y a lifetime of bliss and of joy?


X's statement to Y, the day after their wedding: "I promise to make you eternally happy."

Not hearsay: Commissive illocution. The witness is reporting a promise being made that he heard with his own ears.
 

  1. Issue: Whether the marriage of X to Y was performed by a justice of the peace.


X's statement: "During the wedding ceremony I broke out in a cold sweat when I heard the minister say, 'I now pronounce you husband and wife.'"

Hearsay: The person making this statement is not the witness on the stand, but is someone else (X). X has made an assertive illocution; part of the propositional content is: "I heard the minister say..", and this part of the propositional content is being offered as proof against the issue of the marriage being performed by a justice of the peace; therefore, there is hearsay. Also there is a declaration here ("I now pronounce you husband and wife), but because the declaration is inside of the assertive, the whole thing is no good.
If the Witness (W), who is testifying, said that s/he was present at the ceremony and heard with his/her own ears that the minister had said "I now pronounce you husband and wife," that would not be hearsay.
 


Return to Linguistics 105 home page.