According to the method dear to Austin, through the analysis of abnormal cases, or failures, it is possible to throw light on the normal and standard cases. An examination of excuses should enable us to gain an understanding of the notion of action, by means of the preliminary elucidation of the notions of responsibility and freedom.
Far from being reducible to merely making some bodily movements, doing an action is organized into different stages: the intelligence , the appreciation of the situation, the planning , the decision , and the execution. In particular, by using a certain term to describe what someone did, we can cover either a smaller or larger stretch of events, distinguishing the act from its consequences, results, or effects.
The logical limits of these combinations enable Austin to single out the differences among the concepts under investigation. Subsequently, as a second step, such differences are made apparent by an analysis of the grammar and philology of the terms adjectival terminations, negative forms, the prepositions used to form adverbial expressions, and so forth.
Austin does not provide a positive account of the notion of freedom: it is rather elucidated through attention to the different ways in which our actions may be free. Here we will concentrate on two main strands: the dispute between conventionalism and intentionalism on the one hand, and the debate on pornography, free speech, and censorship on the other. Although almost all the developments of SAT contain, in different degrees, both a conventionalist and an intentionalist element, it may be useful to distinguish two main traditions, depending on the preponderance of one element over the other: a conventionalist, Austinian tradition, and an intentionalist, neo-Gricean one.
The hallmark of such effects is, unlike physical actions, their being liable to annulment, their defeasibility. All these elements combine to bring about the inference that enables the hearer to move from the level of the utterance act up to the illocutionary level, going through the locutionary one note that Bach and Harnish, and Searle himself, part company with Austin in distinguishing the components of the speech act.
Bach and Harnish put forward a model, the Speech Act Schema SAS , which represents the pattern of the inference a hearer follows and that the speaker intends that she follow in order to understand the illocutionary act as an act of a certain type as an order, a promise, an assertion, and so forth. The merit of the intentionalist analysis offered by Bach and Harnish is that it attempts to integrate SAT within a global account of linguistic communication whose aim is to provide a psychologically plausible account.
A shortcoming of this approach seems to be concerned with an essential element of SAT itself: the emphasis put on the normative dimension produced by the performance of speech acts. On the other hand, the conventionalist tradition in both its variants seems to show an opposite and equally unsatisfactory tendency.
It has in fact been argued, specifically by relevance theorists see Sperber and Wilson , that the illocutionary level, as identified by SAT, does not effectively play a role in the process of linguistic comprehension. More generally, this objection urges speech act theorists to confront the cognitive turn in the philosophy of language and linguistics. Liberal defenders of pornography maintain that pornography — even when violent and degrading — should be protected to defend a fundamental principle: the right to freedom of speech or expression.
On the one hand, pornography or at least violent and degrading pornography where women are portrayed as willing sexual objects subordinates women by ranking them as inferior and legitimizing discrimination against them. On the other hand, pornography silences women by creating a communicative environment that deprives them of their illocutionary potential. The claim that pornography silences women can be analysed along the lines drawn by Austin. According to Langton , one may prevent the performance of a locutionary act by preventing the utterance of certain expressions, using physical violence, institutional norms, or intimidation l ocutionary silence.
Or one may prevent the performance of a perlocutionary act by disregarding the illocutionary act, even if felicitously achieved perlocutionary frustration. Against the protection of pornography as a form of expression a simple form of locution , Langton and Hornsby argue that pornography does more than simply express : it acts to silence the expressions of women a form of illocution , thereby restricting their freedom of speech. We are thus confronted with two different, and conflicting, rights or, better, with different people in conflict over the same right, the right to free speech.
Martin , who defends a form of nonrepresentational realism. More generally, Mark Kaplan , has insisted on the necessity of considering our ordinary practices of knowledge attribution as a methodological constraint for epistemology, in order for it to preserve its own intellectual integrity.
According to Kaplan, the adoption of an Austinian methodology in epistemology would undermine skeptical arguments about knowledge. Federica Berdini Email: federica.
Claudia Bianchi Email: claudia. John Langshaw Austin — J. Philosophy of Language a. Meaning and Truth With the help of his innovative methodology, Austin takes a new stance towards our everyday language. Not all utterances, then, are assertions concerning states of affairs. Constatives , on the one hand, are sentences like 3 The cat is on the mat: they aim to describe states of affairs and are assessable as true or false.
Further infelicities concern the execution of the procedure, for it must be executed by all participants both B. Finally, there are cases in which the performance of an act is achieved, but there is an abuse of the procedure, due to the violation of two kinds of rules: C. We may in fact perform the act of, say, ordering by using an explicit performative, as in 4 I order you to close the door but also with 5 Close the door!
Similarly, there are performative verbs also for acts of stating, asserting, or concluding, as in 6 I assert that the Earth is flat. To show this, Austin presents two arguments: a on the one hand, constatives may be assessed as happy or unhappy: like performatives, assertions require appropriate conditions for their felicitous performance to give an example, it does not seem appropriate to make an assertion one does not believe ; b on the other hand, performatives may be assessed in terms of truth and falsehood, or in terms of some conformity to the facts: of a verdict we say that it is fair or unfair, of a piece of advice that it is good or bad, of praise that it is deserved or not.
The locutionary act is the act of saying something, the act of uttering certain expressions, well-formed from a syntactic point of view and meaningful. It may furthermore be analyzed into a phonetic act the act of uttering certain noises , a phatic act the act of uttering words, that is, sounds as conforming to a certain vocabulary and grammar , and a rhetic act the act of using these words with a certain meaning — sense or reference.
To perform a locutionary act is also and eo ipso to perform an illocutionary act Austin , An illocutionary act is a way of using language, and its performance is the performance of an act in saying something as opposed to performance of an act of saying something. It corresponds to the force that an utterance like 5 has in a particular context: order, request, entreaty, or challenge.
The perlocutionary act corresponds to the effects brought about by performing an illocutionary act, to its consequences intentional or non-intentional on the feelings, thoughts, or actions of the participants. According to Austin the speaker, by saying what she says, performs another kind of act like persuading, convincing, or alerting because she can be taken as responsible for those effects compare Sbisa and Austin makes a further distinction between perlocutionary objects the consequences brought about by an illocutionary act in virtue of its force — as alerting can be a consequence of the illocutionary act of warning and perlocutionary sequels the consequences brought about by an illocutionary act without a systematic connection to its force — as surprising can be a consequence of the illocutionary act of asserting Austin The class of Verdictives includes acts formal or informal of giving a verdict, estimate, or appraisal as acquitting, reckoning, assessing, diagnosing.
These may concern facts or values. The class of Exercitives includes acts of exerting powers, rights or influence as appointing, voting, ordering, warning.
These presuppose that the speaker has a certain kind of authority or influence. First, it clearly involves a distinctive sensory experience. Second, the distinctive sensory experience that it involves is apt to give rise to an erroneous perceptual judgment, to the effect that the stick is bent. Now one way of explaining the erroneous perceptual judgment is to view it as dictated by the sensory experience—that is, to view it as accurately representing features presented in the experience: the bent-ness of that which is experienced.
Since the stick is not in fact bent, and that which is experienced is bent, we have reason to claim that that which is experienced is not identical with the stick. What we experience is sense-data rather than a stick. Moreover, we might also consider more extreme cases in which we make erroneous perceptual judgments: cases of delusion or hallucination. For example, there is the case in which an alcoholic person judges that pink rats are visible, when in fact there are none.
Now, given the proposed account of the case of illusion, that case cannot be distinguished from the case of delusion by appeal to the fact that, in the former, an environmental feature is experienced while, in the latter, there is no suitable environmental feature to be experienced.
It therefore seems natural to treat the two cases as of the same basic type, and to offer the same type of explanation for both. Thus, one might be tempted to view the rat-delusion as having the following three features. First, it involves a distinctive sensory experience.
Second, the distinctive sensory experience that it involves dictates an erroneous perceptual judgment to the effect that pink rats are visible.
Third, that judgment is dictated because it accurately represents features present in the experience. Austin responds as follows. First, he exploits the role of judgmental acumen in perceptual judgment in order to provide an alternative explanation of cases of illusion or more generally of things looking ways that they are not. He allows that some things really do look the way they are sometimes taken to be—the stick looks bent, even though it is not in fact bent. For example, they are available to other perceivers and might be recorded in a photograph.
Austin discusses talk about how things look, and distinguishes it from talk about how things seem —which he associates with judgment rather than with experience, in Sense and Sensibilia a: 33— See also Jackson 30—49; Martin ; Travis In support of this form of explanation, Austin notes that not everyone would be inclined to judge that the stick is bent.
However, because the connection between what is experienced and what one judges on its basis is not straightforward—because judgmental acumen is involved in moving from one to the other—there is no general way to read back from the judgments someone is prone to make to specific features of their sensory experiences.
Because such cases of illusion involve experience of ordinary things, while standard cases of delusion do not, we thus have a ground on which to distinguish the two sorts of case. For example, we have grounds to distinguish the case in which someone erroneously judges that a submerged stick is bent from the case of the alcoholic person who judges that pink rats are visible.
But having distinguished the cases in that way, we are liable to become open to two new questions. First, should we allow that the judgment in the delusory case is based on sensory experience? Perhaps, for example, some cases of delusion involve dysfunction in the systems responsible for perceptual judgment of a sort that give rise to perceptual judgments in the absence of any sense-experiential basis for those judgments.
Perhaps some cases of delusion involve dysfunctional judgmental responses to what is seen or heard. For example, an alcoholic subject judgment that a pink rat is visible might be a disordered response to an experience of a shadow. Unless we are forced to answer both questions affirmatively, we lack the basis for an argument that the deluded subject experiences anything distinct from the ordinary things and features that they can see, hear, etc. Moreover, it is very plausible that such grounds can be provided.
However, although the style of response just considered is indecisive against such additional developments of the argument, the resources that it deploys will surely figure in serious engagement with those developments. It is here in particular that Austin comes close to endorsing a form of disjunctivism about perception see Soteriou The three most distinctive features of his views in this area are the following.
Austin holds that we can make progress on questions about freedom and action by descending from reflection at the general level—i. The basic range here consists in the various specific ways in which we can characterize happenings as actions—for example, as someone running to the shop, or as their reading a book.
In addition to that basic range are what Austin calls aggravations : the various specific ways in which we characterize someone as distinctively responsible for something that happens—for example, when we characterize someone as having done something on purpose, intentionally, or deliberately.
We might, for example, characterize a happening as an accident, a mistake, involuntary, unintentional, inadvertent, or as due in part to clumsiness, lack of appreciation of circumstances, or incompetence. Where an act is performed, and where no excuse is available, the action is one for which the actor counts as fully responsible. For instance, one might seek to excuse what appeared to be an action of type A by claiming that the agent was only pretending to A , pretending to be A -ing, or pretending that they were A -ing.
Turning now to 2 , Austin thinks that there is a range of normal or standard cases of attributions of action with respect to which modification, by appeal either to aggravations or excuses, is impermissible. To add that the agent did the thing, for example, either voluntarily or involuntarily would be inappropriate, incorrect, or even senseless.
Amongst the supporting examples he gives are the following:. I sit in my chair, in the usual way—I am not in a daze or influenced by threats or the like: here, it will not do to say either that I sit in it intentionally or that I did not sit in it intentionally, nor yet that I sat in it automatically or from habit or what you will.
It is bedtime, I am alone, I yawn: but I do not yawn involuntarily or voluntarily! To yawn in any such peculiar way is just not to just yawn. He suggests that such apparent pairs do not invariably target the very same specific elements.
See — Austin thinks that philosophers have tended to assume that, given that someone has done a specific thing, it will always be a further question whether those pieces of machinery are present or absent. Moreover, philosophers have aligned that question with the question whether the actor was responsible for what they did or acted freely. Those philosophers have in effect been making the following pair of assumptions.
Characteristically, Austin suggests that the situation is more complicated. In particular, although he thinks that, in normal or standard cases, actors are responsible for what they do and act freely, he holds that what makes that so can vary from case to case: different types of machinery can account for freedom and responsibility with respect to different types of action. He holds moreover that different aggravating and excusing modifiers target different pieces of machinery.
In addition, it depends upon whether the targeted machinery figures in normal cases of actions of the type in question. Excuses of that general type have figured centrally in discussions of human freedom and the bearing of determinism on whether we ever act freely. Suppose that, wherever an excuse of this form is correctly applicable, we are not responsible for the action targeted by the excuse and did not act freely.
If this supposition were correct, a demonstration that there are no things that we do that we could have avoided doing, and no things that we do not do that we could have done, would amount to a demonstration that we are never responsible for doing, or refraining from doing, what we do and, so, never act freely. And some philosophers have held that determinism provides the basis for such a demonstration.
Such a demonstration might take the following form. The all-in claim that someone could have done something at t requires that the circumstances at t are consistent with their doing that thing at t.
But according to determinism, the circumstances, C , at t determine that one set of events, E , occurs at t rather than any others. There, he discusses and rejects attempts in G. Austin thinks that his objections to the accounts on which he focuses provide partial support to the view that our ordinary claims about what we can do are incompatible with determinism.
According to determinism, it follows that it is impossible that C and I do try to hole the putt. But that is consistent both with its being possible, in slightly different circumstances, that I try to hole the putt, and with it being the case that, if I were to try, I would succeed.
However, in a footnote, Austin presents an important putative counterexample:. Consider the case where I miss a very short putt and kick myself because I could have holed it. It is not that I should have holed it if I had tried: I did try, and missed. It is not that I should have holed it if conditions had been different: that might of course be so, but I am talking about conditions as they precisely were, and asserting that I could have holed it.
There is the rub. Now a committed determinist would claim that the events that constitute such failures must be determined—and in that sense explained—by the circumstances at and before the failure. But Austin believes—for reasons in effect considered above—that the existence of such an explanation would make it the case that, in fact, the golfer could not have made the putt in the circumstances as they precisely were.
We have here, then, a point at which Austin expresses his view that ordinary attributions of ability, power, and capacity are incompatible with the thesis of determinism.
In response, the compatibilist is forced, I think, to deny that its being true that a golfer could have holed the putt, or even that he could have holed the putt in precisely the same conditions, entails that he would have holed the putt in a perfect duplicate of the actual world.
Leaving that issue to one side, Austin presents the proposed analysis with a case of masking —a case in which, although ability is retained, successful exercise of the ability is somehow precluded, for instance by outside interference for discussion of masking, see A. Bird ; Clarke ; Fara ; and Johnston The challenge facing the defender of the analysis is to spell out the analysis so as to cope with masking.
Arguably, meeting the challenge depends upon provision of a non-circular specification of all possible masks. Austin would, I think, claim that it is impossible to meet the challenge. For on his view, abilities are sometimes masked brutely , without any specifiable mask. Even if he is wrong about that, it remains an open question whether the challenge can be met, or whether the endless heterogeneity of potential masks makes it impossible to provide an explanatory specification.
Longworth warwick. Life and Work 2. Language and Truth 2. Knowledge and Perception 3. Action and Freedom 4. Austin married Jean Coutts in They had four children, two girls and two boys. Austin died in Oxford on 8 February Hampshire 34 In short, it mattered to Austin that, in attempting to make out positions and arguments, philosophers should meet ordinary standards of truth, accuracy, and so forth.
Here Austin warns: It is worth bearing in mind…the general rule that we must not expect to find simple labels for complicated cases…however well-equipped our language, it can never be forearmed against all possible cases that may arise and call for description: fact is richer than diction. This is apt to be an especial liability when it comes to the question whether a sentence can be used in a particular circumstance to state something true or false: We say, for example, that a certain statement is exaggerated or vague or bold, a description somewhat rough or misleading or not very good, an account rather general or too concise.
And judgment is involved in a way that is sensitive to the intents and purposes with which a statement is made. For that reason, truth is not a simple relation between types of sentences given their meanings and particular facts. A pair of statements made using the same sentence with respect to the same facts but on different occasions—given different intents and purposes—might differ in truth-value a: fn2; a: 40—41, 62—77, —; b: — According to this form of deflationism, saying that a statement is true is just a way of saying that the statement has one or another of a range of more specific positive qualities—for example, that it is satisfactory, correct, fair, etc.
In giving an account of correspondence, Austin makes appeal to two types of what he calls conventions as per 3 above : [ 8 ] Descriptive conventions. These correlate sentences with types of situation, thing, event, etc.
Demonstrative conventions. These correlate statements statings with historic particular, concrete situations, things, events, etc. See also 40—41, 65 And the circumstances can matter in a variety of ways, not simply by supplying, or failing to supply, an appropriate array of facts: …in the case of stating truly or falsely, just as in the case of advising well or badly, the intents and purposes of the utterance and its context are important; what is judged true in a school book may not be so judged in a work of historical research.
The second reason is based on the fact that any sentence can be used in performing a variety of linguistic acts. Although in stating, we typically produce statements that are assessable as true or false, in performing other linguistic acts, we need not produce things that are assessable in that way.
The second reason depends, then, on two sub-claims: first, that whether a sentence is used on an occasion to make a statement —more generally, something truth-assessable—is dependent on more than just what it means; second, that some uses of sentences to perform linguistic acts other than the making of statements are not properly assessable as true or false.
Roughly, the distinction is a generalisation of distinctions between genuine assertions and mock assertions in fiction or on the stage. Jacques Derrida challenged the standing of the distinction and the priority that Austin seemed to accord to some of what he counted as serious uses.
See Derrida and Searle For recent discussion of aspects of the controversy see de Gaynesford , A. Moore , Richmond , Ricks Austin, in providing his theory of speech acts, makes a significant challenge to the philosophy of language, far beyond merely elucidating a class of morphological sentence forms that function to do what they name. Read more on Wikipedia. Since , the English Wikipedia page of J.
Austin has received more than , page views. His biography is available in 37 different languages on Wikipedia up from 36 in Austin is the th most popular philosopher up from th in , the th most popular biography from United Kingdom down from th in and the 20th most popular British Philosopher. Austin is most famous for his work in the philosophy of language, including his theory of speech acts. New York: Random House, Also published in Fann Symposium on J. Austin , cited under Anthologies.
Warnock, G. London: Routledge, Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login. Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here.
Not a member? Sign up for My OBO. Already a member? Publications Pages Publications Pages.
0コメント