Dave's reading notes

austin-speech-acts

Properties1
tagsbook-nonfiction, language, linguistics, philosophy, pragmatics, speech-act-theory

Austin: How to Do Things with Words

Summary: J.L. Austin’s founding text of speech act theory — the argument that language is not only used to describe the world but to do things in it, and that the old truth/falsity dichotomy misses most of what utterances actually accomplish.

Sources: Physical book clipnotes/Library_Quotes_Batch_2.md

Source pages: Library Quotes Analysis: Batch 2 (Books 11-20)

Last updated: 2026-05-06

Speech as action

“Speech is an act, not just a description.” “To say something is to do something.” “The total speech act in the total speech situation is the only actual object of study.”

Austin’s challenge to the philosophical tradition: it had assumed that sentences are primarily descriptions, assessable as true or false. But huge swathes of language are not like that. “I promise,” “I hereby declare you husband and wife,” “I name this ship the Queen Mary” — these sentences do not describe a promise, a marriage, a naming; they constitute one. The saying is the doing.

Performatives

“Performatives: Utterances that change the state of the world (e.g., promises, bets, warnings).” “Under what conditions does saying ‘I do’ actually make two people married?” “A ‘misfire’ in language is as significant as a mistake in logic.”

A performative is an utterance that performs an action rather than reporting one. For a performative to succeed, specific conditions must be met: the right person, the right context, the right procedure. A judge who lacks jurisdiction cannot make a ruling by saying the right words. Austin calls these failures misfires — the speech act is attempted but does not come off. This shows that language is embedded in institutions and social structures, not free-floating.

Three layers of every utterance

“Locution, Illocution, and Perlocution: The three layers of every spoken action.” “Can we ever separate what a word means from what it does?”

Austin distinguishes:

  • Locution: what is said (the meaning of the words)
  • Illocution: what is done in saying it (warning, promising, asserting, questioning)
  • Perlocution: what effect is produced in the listener (being persuaded, alarmed, comforted)

The same locution can carry different illocutionary force in different contexts; the same illocutionary act can produce different perlocutionary effects in different listeners. Separating these layers dissolves many apparent paradoxes about meaning and communication. Compare eco-mouse-or-rat on translation as the challenge of preserving illocutionary force across languages.

Language philosophy meets pragmatics

Austin’s framework became the foundation of linguistic pragmatics and connects directly to annen-nlp-5 (the study of communication as a system of moves) and adler-how-to-speak (the listener must respond to the speaker’s intention — the illocutionary act — not just the words). It also anticipates foucault-order-of-things: if discourse creates its objects, the mechanism is something like Austin’s performatives operating at the scale of institutions.

Graph View

Backlinks