Advertisement

Performativity Revisited: J. L. Austin and His Legacy

  • Wiesław OleksyEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Second Language Learning and Teaching book series (SLLT)

Abstract

The paper introduces J. L. Austin’s basic notions with a view to show how they pertain to the concept of performativity, which constitutes the point of departure for the discussion of Austin’s impact in two research areas: literary criticism and communicative language teaching. Prior to the presentation of the appropriations of Austin’s ideas in the two areas, some criticism directed at Austin is dealt with. The section on literary speech acts begins with an overview of some approaches to literary criticism inspired by speech act theory and contains an analysis of fragments of Szymborska’s poem “The joy of writing” from the vantage point of speech act analysis. The last section is devoted to communicative language teaching and attempts to show that D. Hymes’ concept of communicative competence and notions related to his approach to language use have been influenced by Austin’s work.

References

  1. Allington, D. (2008). How to do things with literature: Blasphemous speech acts, satanic intentions, and the uncommunicativeness of verses. Poetics Today, 2(3), 473–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altieri, C. (1975). The poem as act: A way to reconcile presentational and mimetic theories. The Iowa Review, 6(3), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amselek, P. (1988). Philosophy of law and the theory of speech acts. Ratio Juris, 1, 187–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Azuelos-Atlas, S. (2007). A pragmatic analysis of legal proof of criminal intent. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernaerts, L. (2010). Interactions in “Cuckoo’s Nest”: Elements of a narrative speech-act analysis. Narrative, 18(3), 276–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blok, V. (2013). The power of speech acts. Reflections on a performative concept of ethical oaths in economics and business. Review of Social Economy, 71(2), 187–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Botha, E. (2007). Speech act theory and biblical interpretation. Neotestamentica, 41(2), 274–294.Google Scholar
  9. Bushell, S. (2009). The making of meaning in Wordsworth’s “Home at Grassmere”: Speech acts, microanalysis and “Freud’s slips”. Studies in Romanticism, 48(3), 391–421.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Cole, P. (1975). The synchronic and diachronic status of conversational implicature. In P. Cole & P. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3. Speech acts (pp. 257–283). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  14. Derrida, J. (1988). Signature event context. In J. Derrida (Ed.), Limited Inc. (pp. 1–9). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Derrida, J. (2002). Negotiations, interventions and interviews, 1971–2001. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Esterhammer, A. (1994). Creating states: Studies in the performative language of John Milton and William Blake. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Felman, S. (1983). The literary speech act. Don Juan with Austin, or seduction in two languages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fish, S. (1982). With the compliments of the author: Reflections on Austin and Derrida. Critical Inquiry, 8, 693–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glendinnig, S. (2011). Derrida: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gordon, G., & Lakoff, G. (1971). Conversational postulates. CLS, 7, 63–85.Google Scholar
  21. Gorman, D. (2001). The use and abuse of speech-act theory in criticism: A corrective note. Poetics Today, 22(3), 669–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (1972). The ethnography of communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Gustafsson, M., & Sørli, R. (Eds.). (2015). The philosophy of J. L. Austin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Halion, K. (1989). Speech acts and deconstruction: A defense of the distinction between normal and parasitic speech acts (Doctoral dissertation). McMaster University, Canada.Google Scholar
  26. Hancher, M. (1975). Understanding poetic speech acts. College English, 36, 632–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hornsby, J. (2008). Speech acts and performatives. In E. Lepore & B. Smith (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language (pp. 87–102). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hymes, D. (1965). Review of How to do things with words by J. L. Austin (1962). American Anthropologist, 67(2), 587–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hymes, D. (1972a). Towards communicative competence. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hymes, D. (1972b). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected reading (pp. 269–293). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics. An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hymes, D. (1989). Ways of speaking. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking (pp. 433–451). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, B. (1980). Poetry and performative language: Mallarme and Austin. In B. Johnson (Ed.), The critical difference: Essays in the contemporary rhetoric of reading (pp. 52–66). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jones, T. (2012). Poetic language. Theory and practice from the Renaissance to the present. Edingburgh: Edingburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Levin, S. (1976). What kind of speech act a poem is. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Pragmatics of language and literature (pp. 141–160). Dordrecht: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  37. Margolis, J. (1979). Literature and speech acts. Philosophy and Literature, 3(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miller, H. (2001). Speech acts in literature. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Miller, H. (2005). Literature as conduct. Speech acts in Henry James. New York: Fordham University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mole, C. (2013). The performative limits of poetry. British Journal of Aestetics, 63(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ohmann, R. (1971). Speech acts and the definition of literature. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 4, 1–19.Google Scholar
  42. Oleksy, W. (1982). Remarks on the literal meaning of ‘It’s cold in here’. Studia Filologiczne. Filologia Angielska, WSP Bydgoszcz, 17, 93–101.Google Scholar
  43. Pavel, T. (1981). Ontological issues in poetics: Speech acts and fictional worlds. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 40(2), 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Petrey, S. (1990). Speech acts and literary theory. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Pratt, M. (1977). Toward a speech-act theory of literary discourse. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Rabinowitz, P. (1995). Speech act theory and literary studies. In R. Selden (Ed.), The Cambridge history of literary criticism (pp. 347–374). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Robinson, D. (2006). Introducing performative pragmatics. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Ross, R. (1970). On declarative sentences. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 222–272). Weltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar
  49. Searle, J. (1965). What is a speech act. In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221–239).Google Scholar
  50. Searle, J. (1967). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23.Google Scholar
  51. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Searle, J. (1977). Reiterating the differences: A reply to Derrida. Glyph, 1, 198–208.Google Scholar
  53. Searle, J. (1989). How performatives work. Linguistics and Philosophy, 12(5), 535–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sell, R. (2000). Literature as communication. The foundations of mediating criticism. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stalmaszczyk, P., & Oleksy, W. (2014). Philosophical and communicative turns in the study of language. In W. Szubko-Sitarek, Ł. Salski, & P. Stalmaszczyk (Eds.), Language learning, discourse and communication (pp. 229–246). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swan, M. (2007). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 39, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Szymborska, W. (1967). Sto pociech. Kraków: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.Google Scholar
  58. Tanaka, R. (1972). Action and meaning in literary theory. Journal of Literary Semantics, 1, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turner, R. (1969). Words, utterances and activities. In J. Douglas (Ed.), Existential sociology (pp. 165–187). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  60. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1976). Pragmatics of language and literature. Dordrecht: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  61. van Oort, R. (1995). The anthropology of speech-act literary criticism: A review article. Anthropoetics: The Journal of Generative Anthropology, 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  62. Woodmansee, M. (1978). Speech-act theory and the perpetuation of the doctrine of literary autonomy. Centrum, 6(2), 75–89.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ŁódźŁódźPoland

Personalised recommendations