An utterance has an illocutionary force. For instance, a declarative sentence may be uttered to make a claim, to give an advice or to excuse oneself. The illocutionary force must be distinguished from the basic illocution carried by a sentence type or clause type. The three sentences of are a declarative, interrogative and jussive sentence, resp. They comprise the same proposition, viz. that Titus go(es) hunting.
| . | a. | Titus | venatum | it. |
| Latin | Titus(M):NOM.SG | hunt:SUP | go(PRS):3.SG | |
| Titus goes hunting. | ||||
| b. | Titusne | venatum | it? | |
| Titus(M):NOM.SG:INT | hunt:SUP | go(PRS):3.SG | ||
| Does Titus go hunting? | ||||
| c. | Titus | venatum | eat! | |
| Titus(M):NOM.SG | hunt:SUP | go:PRS.SUBJ:3.SG | ||
| Let/May Titus go hunting! | ||||
The meaning of a sentence type is a basic illocution. It may be conceived of as a virtual generic illocutionary force. This is neither part of the utterance nor part of the proposition, but part of the meaning of a system sentence or clause. Proof of it is that the dependent clauses in a-c have the same clause types – they are an indirect declarative, interrogative and jussive clause, resp. – and, thus, the same basic illocutions as those of .
| . | a. | Gaius | dicit | Titum | venatum | ire. |
| Latin | Gaius(M):NOM.SG | say(PRS):3.SG | Titus(M):ACC.SG | hunt:SUP | go:INF | |
| Gaius says that Titus goes hunting. | ||||||
| b. | Gaius | interrogat | Titusne | venatum | eat. | |
| Gaius(M):NOM.SG | ask(PRS):3.SG | Titus(M):NOM.SG:INT | hunt:SUP | go:PRS.SBJ:3.SG | ||
| Gaius asks whether Titus goes hunting. | ||||||
| c. | Gaius | imperat | ut | Titus | venatum | eat. | |
| Gaius(M):NOM.SG | order(PRS):3.SG | that | Titus(M):NOM.SG | hunt:SUP | go:PRS.SUBJ:3.SG | ||
| Gaius orders that Titus go hunting. | |||||||
Such dependent clauses lack the corresponding illocutionary force, though. While a can be used to assert that Titus goes hunting, a cannot be so used; and likewise, the #b and #c versions of can be used as a question and as an order, but the corresponding versions of cannot be used to those effects. (This is, by the way, why the former, but not the latter sentences end in a question mark and an exclamation mark.)
The traditional concepts in this area are the sentence type and its three subtypes, the declarative, interrogative and jussive sentence. However, since dependent clauses may be of the same types, sentence types are clause types born by sentences. Thus, illocutionary forces are born by utterances. Basic illocutions are born by clauses. Neither is born by a bare proposition.
All of the subordinate clauses in are provided by a basic illocution. The presence of a basic illocution in a proposition can be diagnosed if it can change.
| . | It is possible that John arrives in time. |
The that clause of looks like the that-clause of the translation of a. However, the former is not a declarative clause because it does not contrast with a clause of a different type: Neither it is possible whether John arrives in time nor it is possible that John arrive in time (trying to force a jussive sense) are grammatical. The proposition designated by the subject clause of possible is therefore a bare proposition, while the proposition depending on say is a typed proposition.
Some complex constructions involve a bare proposition, others involve a typed proposition. This is a topic of the section on nexion.