An Exploration of Conditional Clause Exegesis 391 he had preached before, this point was intrinsically hypothetical. A conditional formulation was therefore needed to postulate the consequences of an imaginary situation. IV. Conclusions 1. Implications for conditional clause exegesis Exegesis of conditional clauses requires an integrative approach which takes note of lexical, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic issues. Analysing conditions based on grammar and semantic relationships is essential for delineating the range of possible meanings, but this needs supplementation by attention to their function in the discourse. The intended function of an utterance cannot be determined with certainty (144). Speech Act Theory is useful in that it provides criteria (felicity conditions), with which a given utterance can be compared, but it does have limitations. From a practical perspective, the multifunctionality of indirect speech acts, particularly in sequences, complicates analysis. Furthermore, readers of a text lack access to the entire original context which provided the set of presuppositions necessary for indirect speech acts to function as intended. As Vanhoozer (145) stresses, inability to prove the illocutionary force of a statement is not rooted in intrinsic indefiniteness in the meaning of utterances, but in this lack of complete information. Analysing discourse with reference to Speech Act Theory can be of value, since it facilitates integration of the information that is available. Cotterell and Turner observe concerning another approach to discourse analysis that “its contribution is not to solve the problem, but to pose it in the sharpest possible way” (146). This comment is equally appropriate for analyses based on Speech Act Theory, which, whilst not guaranteeing better answers, may provoke better questions. Two key questions which it raises in relation to conditional clauses concern the nature of their indirect illocutionary force, and what the basis is for the choice of conditional rather than more direct forms. (144) See COTTERELL – TURNER, Linguistics, 225. They suggest that a proposal as to the illocutionary force of a statement might “at best…attain widespread assent, but only that sort of assent that is won by any strongly probable reading.” (145) VANHOOZER, Meaning, 212. (146) COTTERELL – TURNER, Linguistics, 226. They make this point in relation to Semantic Structure Analysis.