1887
Volume 17, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

The goal of this paper is a reassessment of the contributions provided by John L. Austin’s book “How to Do Things with Words” to pragmatics. It discusses some assumptions belonging to the received reading of the volume, as regards its aim and structure, the conceptions of illocution and of perlocution, and the alleged exclusion of “non-seriousness”. Against the received reading, it is argued that “How to Do Things with Words” is structured as a proof by contradiction of the claim that all speech should be considered as action, that in illocution a major role is played by the conventionality of effects, that perlocution presupposes a conception of action as responsibility, and that Austin had reasons not to deal with “non-seriousness” in detail, albeit recognizing the issue as relevant to the study of the uses of language. In the conclusions, the tenets attributed to Austin are neither crtiticized nor defended, but an attempt is made to say what are their implications for research into language use and for philosophy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.3.06sbi
2007-01-01
2019-10-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austin, John L
    (1956) A plea for excuses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57. Repr. in J.L. Austin 1970: 175-204.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. (1957) Pretending. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 32. Repr. in J.L. Austin 1970: 253-271.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2nd revised edition 1975.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (1966) Three ways of spilling ink. The Philosophical Review 75. Repr. in J.L. Austin 1970: 272-287.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1970) Philosophical Papers (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bach, Kent , and Robert M. Harnish
    (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Black, Max
    (1963) Austin on Performatives. Philosophy38: 217-263. doi: 10.1017/S003181910006174X
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S003181910006174X [Google Scholar]
  8. Caffi, Claudia
    (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics31: 881-909. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Crary, Alice
    (2002) The happy truth: J.L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words. Inquiry45: 59-80.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Derrida, Jacques
    (1972) Signature événement contexte. In J. Derrida , Marges de la philosophie. Paris: Minuit, pp. 365-93.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Forguson, L.W
    (1966) In pursuit of performatives. Philosophy41: 341-47. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100058885
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0031819100058885 [Google Scholar]
  12. Fraser, Bruce
    (1980) Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics4: 341-350. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(80)90029‑6
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goldman, Alvin
    (1970) A Theory of Human Action. Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goffman, Erving
    (1981) Footing. InForms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-157.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gu, Yueguo
    (1993) The impasse of perlocution. Journal of Pragmatics20: 405-32. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90038‑Q
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90038-Q [Google Scholar]
  16. Sbisà, Marina
    (1984) On illocutionary types. Journal of Pragmatics8: 93-112. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90066‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90066-3 [Google Scholar]
  17. Sbisà Marina
    (2001) Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics33: 1791-1814. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00060‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sbisà, Marina
    (2006) Communicating citizenship in verbal interaction: Principles of a speech act oriented discourse analysis. In H. Hausendorf & A. Bora (eds.), Analysing Citizenship Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 151-180. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.19.11sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.19.11sbi [Google Scholar]
  19. John R. Searle
    (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1979) Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  21. Searle, John R
    (1977) Reiterating the differences: A reply to Derrida. Glyph. John Hopkins Textual Studies1.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Strawson, Peter F
    (1964) Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review73: 439-460. doi: 10.2307/2183301
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2183301 [Google Scholar]
  23. Yeager, Daniel
    (2006) J.L. Austin and the law. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.17.3.06sbi
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Action , Convention , Illocutionary act , J.L. Austin and Perlocutionary act
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error