That would lead to a regress of intentions. We need a theory of mental content and this may leave room for an alternative extensionalist account. There can be no analysis of meaning which does not take into account what the speaker is trying to do with the words. Understanding is therefore as much a matter of figuring out what type of act an utterance is as relying on conventions or assumptions about speaker s intentions to figure out what the words mean. I m not married but does not state it.
Illocutionary force characterizes the type of act an utterance belongs to.
Perhaps the only definitive characteristic is that statements have truth-values. Using language is engaging in rule-governed behaviour much like playing a game. The rules define what counts as a meaningful utterance and how the meaning is to be taken. Explains the difference between mere sounds or marks and meaningful uses of language. Different speech acts may express the same proposition but given different illocutionary force, the proposition is to be taken in different ways.