Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: July 29th, 2018, 12:00 pm
Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
It institutes no "right", no convention, no role, no distribution of powers. Even if it accomplishes what it states, it is nevertheless not a performative". " I speak" is an utterance that communicates something but it does not act on the "other"." Can we consider "I speak" as having a just simple communicative function? Can it be the performative in a broader than Austin's sense?
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
What would that sense be? How would you define a performative utterance so that “I speak” would be?Can it be the performative in a broader than Austin's sense?
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: July 29th, 2018, 12:00 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
We can consider “I speak” as a real utterance, taken in real conversations. In any such case, “I speak” would have a certain performative function. Yet, it is workable to assume that “I speak” is a general statement, representing a wide class of self-referential utterances, such that: “I object,” “I resign,” “I do,” “I speak” etc. After this assumption, it would be possible to consider a question about general performative functions of “I speak.”
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
What is its performative function? If, for example, someone is angry and not speaking to me and I plead for them to speak to me, it is not enough for them to say “I speak”. This is not speaking to me.In any such case, “I speak” would have a certain performative function.
From How to Do Things with Words:
In these examples it seems clear that to utter the sentence (in, of course, the appropriate circumstances) is not to describe my doing of what I should be said in so uttering to be doing or to state that I am doing it: it is to do it. … What are we to call a sentence or an utterance of this type? I propose to call it a performative sentence or a performative utterance, or, for short, a ‘performative.’ (pp. 5-6)
The uttering of the words is, indeed, usually a, or even the, leading incident in the performance of the act (of betting or what not), the performance of which is also the object of the utterance, but it is far from being usually, even if it is ever, the sole thing necessary if the act is to be deemed to have been performed. Speaking generally, it is always necessary that the circumstances in which the words are uttered should be, in some way, or ways, appropriate, and it is very commonly necessary that either the speaker himself or other persons should also perform certain other actions, whether ‘physical’ or ‘mental’ actions or even acts of uttering further words. … (pp. 6-8)
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: July 29th, 2018, 12:00 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
According to your quote from Austin’s book, it is necessary to carefully examine the concrete situation of each particular utterance to find out what was a concrete performative act. I can bring here a few examples:
Plantation in Virginia, 1850. Slave owner has been shouting at the slaves 'You will speak only when I ask you to, and you will answer every question with "Sir"'.
A slave steps forward and loudly proclaims
“I speak”.
Or:
Mary has been mute for two years, following a brain injury. She has just had surgery hoping to rectify some of her problems. She awakes in the recovery room, looks at her father and says in a quiet voice, with tears in her eyes:
“I speak”
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
I think all speech has an implicit interlocutor and propositions put forth call out for agreement. If it is a question, it calls out for relevance, agreement as to subject and purpose. No such thing as non performative language, for all language is implicitly social, and has a social expectation built into it.
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: July 29th, 2018, 12:00 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
You are right that any meaningful statement has an illocutionary force of some kind. Yet, it is possible to isolate a whole class of performative utterances, as Austin did. ""One of our examples was, for instance, the utterance 'I do' (take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife), as uttered in the course of a marriage ceremony. Here we should say that in saying these words we are doing something - namely, marrying, rather than reporting so'mething, namely that we are marrying." (Austin, How To Do Things With Words)."Hereandnow wrote: ↑August 24th, 2018, 9:45 pm Just off the top of my head, what is performative has to set off from what is merely descriptive. I speak can be a description, and has the same locutionary value as 'the grass is green'. Question: are these descriptives not performative? They is not occasions in speaking like promising, swearing, agreeing, prescribing and so forth, one might argue; but all such descriptions carry an implicit performatory function, which is TO the implicit interlocutor, inviting agreement.
I think all speech has an implicit interlocutor and propositions put forth call out for agreement. If it is a question, it calls out for relevance, agreement as to subject and purpose. No such thing as non performative language, for all language is implicitly social, and has a social expectation built into it.
Could you bring an example of "I speak" can be a description"?
Onse again, I agree with you that" No such thing as non performative language, for all language is implicitly social, and has a social expectation built into it." Yet, anyway, it is possible to problematize specific functions of certain utterances, following Austin lead.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
Lazzarato denies “I speak” it is performative because no obligation follows. He says (I was able access some pages of his book online):
This does seem to be the case with his examples of promises, where the person promising has an obligation, and asking questions, where one is by convention obligated to answer. It also seems to be the case in the examples Austin gives on page six.According to Austin’s theory, the force of the performative is that it entails “social obligations”.
In your examples, does an obligation follows? Is it necessary according Austin that an obligation follow? If not, then why ask about a sense broader than Austin’s?
In your first example would there be any difference as a performative to have said “I defy you” or even “Mary had a little lamb” since in the latter case the utterance seems to serve the same performative function, that is, defiance or disobedience.
The same kind of question applies in the case of Mary. Is it the act of speaking or the content of what is said that is at issue or both? Surely, if she said, “I have a little lamb”, the act of speaking is saying that she speaks without her saying “I speak”.
In both these cases doesn’t whatever is said perform the same function? Do the words then not matter?
Does “I speak” suffice for speaking or does speaking require more than the utterance of those two words?
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: July 29th, 2018, 12:00 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
About Austin, it is a little bit controversial, since Austin himself broaden his initial theory of performatives.Fooloso4 wrote: ↑August 24th, 2018, 10:55 pm .
Is it necessary according Austin that an obligation follow? If not, then why ask about a sense broader than Austin’s?
In your first example would there be any difference as a performative to have said “I defy you” or even “Mary had a little lamb” since in the latter case the utterance seems to serve the same performative function, that is, defiance or disobedience.
The same kind of question applies in the case of Mary. Is it the act of speaking or the content of what is said that is at issue or both? Surely, if she said, “I have a little lamb”, the act of speaking is saying that she speaks without her saying “I speak”.
In both these cases doesn’t whatever is said perform the same function? Do the words then not matter?
Does “I speak” suffice for speaking or does speaking require more than the utterance of those two words?
We should not stick literally to exact words "I speak", I think. Yet, if we avoid using words, there will be different theoretical field.
By the way, (it is not related to this thread) I’d like to ask you, as the forum moderator, for how long will I keep my contemporary status of new try member?
-
- Posts: 42
- Joined: July 29th, 2018, 12:00 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
Thank you for your questions. I will try to clarify the difference between Austin and Lazzaroto and why I seek to problematize Lazzaroto’s position regarding “I speak.” Lazzaroto attempts to renew the whole project of performative speech acts, and also to differentiate himself and his project from the contemporary field. He continues the project started by Deleuze and Guattari, and in my opinion does it successfully. He writes: “The theory of the performative speech codifies enunciations, utterances, and their effects, it also institutionalizes speakers and listeners, their respective roles and ranks, and the public sphere of their ranks.”.” So, this theory is actually closed off. Whereas he tries to broaden the concept of a speech act, relating it to the process of subjectivization and to nowadays socio-political situation. However, for some reasons, his critic of “I speak” is not successful. For me, Foucault and Virno did a better job. So, I think it would be interesting compare and contrast different approaches.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
Twenty posts. You are getting close. You didn’t hear it from me but you can reach that number with a few short posts - perhaps breaking up a longer post or a brief comments to other posts.By the way, (it is not related to this thread) I’d like to ask you, as the forum moderator, for how long will I keep my contemporary status of new try member?
We all went through it. The moderators try to stay on top of things so that posts get approved quickly. It hasn’t always been that way. Seeing some of things that try to get past moderation, spam has become a problem, one comes to appreciate the moderation policy.
-
- Posts: 3601
- Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
Reading your last post and looking through your other posts I now have a better idea of what you are up to. Thanks.I will try to clarify the difference between Austin and Lazzaroto and why I seek to problematize Lazzaroto’s position regarding “I speak.”
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
Some linguists no doubt regard “I speak” as a performative only in some contexts and the disagreement between these linguists is set depending on how they choose to frame “performative speech” just like it is hard to define what an insult is if we consider sarcasm as a means to insult - for how can we tell a blunt or uninformed remark from a purposeful insult? In such circumstances some may even argue that the speaker themselves are not always in a position to say what is uttered as an insult or not.
The same kind of issue arises when defining what is and is not grammatically correct speech. Often people frame the term “grammatical” as being “perscriptive grammar” rather in the broader sense it is meant in the field of linguistics - which is a rather imprecise science compared to physics and perhaps more in line with the “wettness” of biological differentiations when it comes to rules and exceptions.
Another favouraite topic of mine is the disageement over what type of antonyms there are. In such areas the concensus doesn’t make it gospel, it merely shows a variety of lingual perspectives through which we constantly have to navigate and renew in order to engage in meaningful conversation - thankfully in day-to-day life colloquial talk doesn’t tend to suffer such pedantic observations and through common discourse the occasional diamond is uncovered from the rough (today’s slang is tomorrow’s intellectual tool.)
- Hereandnow
- Posts: 2839
- Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars
Re: Is the utterance "I speak" a performative?
I think performatives can be recast as constatives: "I now pronounce you man and wife" can be reconceived as "this is now a marriage according to the rules duly recognized". It is the ritualized language of the former that sets them apart, but this is convention merely, and the latter could be substituted for the former if agreement was instituted. This means that the performative nature of such statements explicitly recognized as performative (I promise, you're fired. etc.) are what could be called performative constatives, but this is not due to the fact that nothing is truly performative, because all can be reduced to constatives; it is rather the opposite: all statements are in fact constative performatives, and this is a far better analysis of what really goes on. All language, down to the very utterance of a single concept, is pragmatic, a.k.a. performative. All utterancesNumber2018
You are right that any meaningful statement has an illocutionary force of some kind. Yet, it is possible to isolate a whole class of performative utterances, as Austin did. ""One of our examples was, for instance, the utterance 'I do' (take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife), as uttered in the course of a marriage ceremony. Here we should say that in saying these words we are doing something - namely, marrying, rather than reporting so'mething, namely that we are marrying." (Austin, How To Do Things With Words)."
Could you bring an example of "I speak" can be a description"?
Onse again, I agree with you that" No such thing as non performative language, for all language is implicitly social, and has a social expectation built into it." Yet, anyway, it is possible to problematize specific functions of certain utterances, following Austin lead.
and their concepts are reducible to the hypothetical, "if X is the Y". An interesting notion if you're interested (see Dewey, Peirce, Rorty, others?).
To the contrary of my little thesis, a description of a thing is a declaration of it being true that such and such is the case, which Austin reserves for constatives and excludes from performatives. But in performance of a speech act, what was not the case becomes the case, as with marriage, making a promise baptizing, or whatever. Prior to the promise, there is no promise in place and "S stands under a promise" is untrue. The performance produces a new fact and truth conditions of the world have changed. This is, one could say, what performativity does is language, or intends to do, since some performatives fail in their execution.
This is an exercise in logical analysis, not Austinian scholarship.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023