JL Austin: Key Concepts Notes from How to Do Things with Words
1	Performatives: Words That Do Instead Of Describe
	Contrasted to Constatives Constative: it is so before there is saying Performative: refers to fact of its own successful performance. By saying it, it makes it so General characteristics of Performatives They do not describe, report, or constate Are not true or false Can't be checked by looking at world Uttering a Performative of is part of doing an action (an action not normally described as "just saying something") Some types of Performatives Contractual (I bet) Declaratory (I do) Conditions necessary for Performatives words appropriate for circumstances sincerity (intention) not in question
2	Infelicities: When Performatives Go Wrong
	Conditions needed for Happy Performatives A.I Accepted procedure which includes utterance A.2 Appropriate circumstances for invoking procedure B.l Procedure must be executed properly by all participants B.2 completely T.l Participants must have expected thoughts & feelings T.2 must exhibit those thoughts & feelings Corresponding Infelicities A & B, Misfires: Act purported but void A, Misinvocations: Act disallowed A.l no procedure or no accepted procedure A.2 Misapplications: procedure applied in wrong circumstances Misexecutions: Act vitiated B.l Flaws: procedure incorrectly executed B.2 Hitches: procedure incompletely executed T, Abuses: Act professed but hollow T.l Insincerities "I sympathize with you" when I don't Requisite thoughts lacking "I advise you to" when I don't Requisite intentions lacking "I promise" when I don't intend to keep it T.2 Infractions or Breeches General observations on Infelicity applies to all ceremonial acts Austin's list not complete infelicities can combine & overlap
3	3 Ways A Statement Implies Truth Of Other Statements
	1> Entails if p entails q, then no p entails no q 2> Implies stating a constative implies that you believe it; i.e. "the cat is on the mat" implies I believe it is 3> Presupposes "J's children are bald" presupposes J has children
4	Possible Tests For The Performative
	Can we say, "but did he or she really?"? not very good test doesn't take infelicities into account Could he do the action without uttering the performative? Could he do it deliberately? Could it be false that you do x when you say that "I x"?
5	Behabitives: Exhibit Attitudes & Feelings
	Explicit Performative  Not Pure (Half Descriptive)  Descriptive  I apologize I am sorry I repent  I criticize      I censure I blame I am disgusted by  I approve I approve of I feel approval of I bid you welcome I welcome you
6	Problems with the Performative/Constative Distinction (91)
	Found in/felicity could apply to Constatives also Relation to facts can apply to Performatives in some cases Failed to find grammatical test for performative Hope that every P could be reduced or translated to explicit P Not sure that, even when explicit, a P is performative some explicit P seem true or false
7	Aspects of the Locutionary Act (95)
	The Phonetic Act Uttering certain noises The Phatic Act Uttering words conforming to a grammar The Rhetic Act reports subject's meaning, not their words using those words with a sense and a reference (i.e. a meaning) in general can't perform Rhetic act without referring or naming exception: all triangles have three sides (this is an instance of defining or referring to a definition)
8	Locutionary, Illocutionary, & Perlocutionary Acts Distinguished (1O1)
	Locutionary: uttering noise you know have meaning CONTENT OR MEANING Illocutionary: utterance invokes a conventional force doing something *in* saying something FORCE: HOW AN UTTERANCE IS TO BE TAKEN NECESSARY (CONVENTIONAL) EFFECT ONE EFFECT WHICH CAN BE FORMALIZED Examples of illocutionary acts asking or answering a question pronouncing sentence making an appointment or an appeal making an identification giving a description Perlocutionary: utterance brings about an effect on hearer doing something *by* saying something CONTINGENT EFFECTS INFINITE, UNPREDICTABLE EFFECTS Examples of Perlocutionary acts alarming, scaring, upsetting convincing persuading
9	Distinguishing Illocutionary from Perlocutionary Acts
	Need to drawn line between Illocutionary act & its (Perlocutionary) consequences Ways this line is different from physical acts & their consequences nomenclature marks line instead of consequences (111-15 physical nomenclature focuses on effects: "I shot her" vs. "I pulled the trigger" Illocutionary nomenclature focuses on act: "I apologized" vs. "She relented" Illocutionary Act not part of a cause & effect chain once they're physically over scene shifts to mental: " I apologized" then "She relented" Illocutionary not a consequence of the Locutionary act physical speech & illocutionary act occur simultaneously Nomenclature actually point to conventions, not effects the circumstances which make it (the illocutionary act) possible Ways Illocutionary act is tied to effects & consequences (115-18) Securing Uptake audience must understand meaning & force of Locutionary Illocution "Takes Effect" doesn't "change natural course of events": "I name this ship 'the imperial Fish monger'" Many Illocutionary Acts Invite a Response or Sequel one-way: giving an order Two-way: giving a choice, asking a question: a waiter asks you "coffee, tea, or Turkish hash?" The Two Types of Perlocutionary Effects (118-20) Achievement of a Perlocutionary object convince, persuade, frighten, etc. Production of Perlocutionary Sequel unintended or unforeseen effects Object of one Illocutionary Act may have unintended sequel of another Illocutionary Act I tell a joke (Illocutionary) and he laughs I say "boo" but he laughs
10	Verbal Formulas for Distinguishing Illocutionary from Perlocutionary Acts
	In say x I was doing y (or did y) (a) its use not confined to Illocutionary acts will apply to Locutionary acts in saying I hate Baptists, I was referring to fundamentalists could get out of by arguing "saying" is ambiguous in noilloc acts, 'saying' replaceable by 'speaking of' by the word x,' or 'using the expression' (b) & to acts falling outside our classification In saying x you were making a mistake, running a risk, forgetting, etc. could get out of by a more elaborate test where we can put the y-verb into non-cont tense(preterite or present tense) or where we can change 'in' to 'by' while keeping present tense then the y-verb is not an Illocutionary examples of more elaborate test in saying that he was making a mistake (not Illocutionary) = in saying that he made a mistake or = by saying that he was making a mistake in saying that I protested (Illocutionary) can't = in saying that I protested. or can't = by saying that I was protesting. it will not, however, fit the Perlocutionary act   Meaning of 'In doing A I was doing B' (aI) Means A involves B (A accounts for B) in the course or process of doing A, I was doing B in building a house I was building a wall in uttering noise N I was saying S I account for A and state my purpose in A (a2) Or Means s involves A (B accounts for A) in the doing A, I was in the course or process of doing B in building a wall I was building a house In saying S I was uttering the noise N I account for B and state the effect of B (a3) Formula used to account in answer to the question: "How come you were doing so-and-so?" By saying x I was doing y 'by' must be used in an instrumental, not criterion sense that 'saying is being used in the full sense of a Locutionary act & not a partial sense, i.e. a Phatic act not in the double-convention way Other tests to say x was to do y often works with Illocutionary verbs Verbs classified as Illocutionary are close to explicit Performative.