to the log example above the locutionary act is the utterance of “Can you put a
log on the fire?”.
2. The illocutionary act – The “performance of an act in saying something
as opposed to the performance of an act of saying something” (Austin, 1976, pp.
100). Taking the log example, the illocutionary act is the speaker’s request for
someone to put a log on the fire. The request is what Austin (1976) refers to
when referring to the fact that an illocutionary act is a performance of an act in
saying something as opposed to of. The act of saying something is a locutionary
act. Here it is also helpful to recognise the term illocutionary force (Austin,
1976, pp. 100). Illocutionary force is the intended action of the speaker’s
utterance. The illocutionary for can be different from the illocutionary act.
3. The perlocutionary act - The resulting effect of the locutionary and
illocutionary acts. It is the “consequential effects upon the feelings, thoughts or
actions” (Austin, 1976, pp. 101) . It is the act of causing someone to put the log
on the fire.
After establishing that speech acts are made up of the three components identified
above Austin (1976, pp.15) points to six conditions, felicity conditions, in which he
stresses each speech act must meet. If the utterance meets these sets of conditions, it is
said to be a happy performative, if it doesn’t it is said to be unhappy, meaning that the
act should not be taken seriously (Austin, 1976, pp. 15).
1. It must be already understood and accepted that the utterance of certain
words will lead to a certain effect.
2. The conversations in which the utterances are said are circumstantial, the
circumstance must be of appropriate nature for the performative to be happy.
3. “The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and
58
Made with FlippingBook HTML5