Craft Notes
HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS
this is john austin
one of the most important books to me is HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS by j.l. austin. it is a book about language and how certain utterances transcend the simple description of things or the world. after reading this book, it is easier to understand other people and the import of certain conversations. the book is based on lectures austin gave at, i think, harvard university. i am going to read it for a third time and try to provide a summary and critique of each lecture in the upcoming weeks. if you a familiar with language philosophy, performative utterances or how derrida has used these theories to augment his own, feel free to help me. the main thrust of the book is that in addition to describing things (constative language, or “my shirt is red.”), language can also produce realities. for instance, when saying “i do” at a wedding, if applied to the right person, in the right situation, with no obstacles denaturing the situation, an effect is produced by the utterance. forgiveness is another example. i think many of the ideas in the book could be applied to comment threads here. for instance, if i call someone a “dipshit” in a comment thread, on account of not knowing the correct placement of a comma, and then i apologize, i have used a “behabitive” utterance. a behabitive characterizes behavioral responses. in the moment i apologize, i place myself and the other person in a situation which can either be, according to austin, not true or false, but “felicitous” or “infelicitous” based on the correct execution. my apology must be worded in such a way as to signify true regret, i must not be sarcastic, i must not whisper it quietly or not type it, and the other person must accept it, etc. i can’t remember if i wrote a post on this before, but i will try to do it more in depth here. i think this kind of book is really helpful for dealing with other people, as it uncovers the unstated context for many “language games.” thanks for reading this.
Tags: how to do things with words, j.l. austin
dude, i am really looking forward to this. can’t wait! good work, sam.
dude, i am really looking forward to this. can’t wait! good work, sam.
I have a PDF of Derrida’s critique of Austin on my computer if you want it.
Basically, Derrida inscribes differance in Austin’s language-act theory. Below is some shit from a paper I wrote a year ago on this stuff + contemporary fiction:
Contexts are no longer final; language acts are no longer restricted to their locutionary or illocutionary effects. Austin posits, concerning social invocations, that upon the invocation of a social agreement, the entering into any sort of social contract (a marriage, a psychoanalysis, a monetary interaction), there is the misapprehension that the performative act of the convention halts evolution at the illocutionary act (what is done in saying something and entering into an agreement—e.g. the status of being married), and intentionality—the context and constitution of the act—does not enter into it. For Austin, the intention is displaced from the illocutionarily consummated act.
Derrida says that the condition of possibility and impossibility for Austin’s performativity is a fixity of convention, inasmuch as the invocation of the convention is contingent on a context which refers to larger contexts and finally to a complete situational context. Instead, Derrida argues, contexts are constantly in flux, and as such, it is wholly impossible to rivet a convention into place; with each utterance of “I do,” a new conception of marriage takes place. Marriage mutates, evolves. The social convention imported by the “I do” is transmuted is transformed by its very repetition. In each iteration there is an alteration, a new context brought into the “play” of language and the “play” of persons as actors of language—in each instantiation of a word, new “words” are manufactured, the final iterations of which are deferred, radically opening up language-acts, and subjecting the iteration of the present tense to a play of differences.
I have a PDF of Derrida’s critique of Austin on my computer if you want it.
Basically, Derrida inscribes differance in Austin’s language-act theory. Below is some shit from a paper I wrote a year ago on this stuff + contemporary fiction:
Contexts are no longer final; language acts are no longer restricted to their locutionary or illocutionary effects. Austin posits, concerning social invocations, that upon the invocation of a social agreement, the entering into any sort of social contract (a marriage, a psychoanalysis, a monetary interaction), there is the misapprehension that the performative act of the convention halts evolution at the illocutionary act (what is done in saying something and entering into an agreement—e.g. the status of being married), and intentionality—the context and constitution of the act—does not enter into it. For Austin, the intention is displaced from the illocutionarily consummated act.
Derrida says that the condition of possibility and impossibility for Austin’s performativity is a fixity of convention, inasmuch as the invocation of the convention is contingent on a context which refers to larger contexts and finally to a complete situational context. Instead, Derrida argues, contexts are constantly in flux, and as such, it is wholly impossible to rivet a convention into place; with each utterance of “I do,” a new conception of marriage takes place. Marriage mutates, evolves. The social convention imported by the “I do” is transmuted is transformed by its very repetition. In each iteration there is an alteration, a new context brought into the “play” of language and the “play” of persons as actors of language—in each instantiation of a word, new “words” are manufactured, the final iterations of which are deferred, radically opening up language-acts, and subjecting the iteration of the present tense to a play of differences.
I hate this so much. I’m sorry to everyone.
I hate this so much. I’m sorry to everyone.
SPD’s poetry best sellers of 2009
http://spdtoday.blogspot.com/2009/12/spds-best-selling-poetry-2009.html
sorry, don’t know where to find emails. feel free to delete.
xo
SPD’s poetry best sellers of 2009
http://spdtoday.blogspot.com/2009/12/spds-best-selling-poetry-2009.html
sorry, don’t know where to find emails. feel free to delete.
xo
thanks, john.. i posted.. it’ll be up in an hour
thanks, john.. i posted.. it’ll be up in an hour
alec, i think i understand. i was just thinking about something similar after posting. along the lines of the “game” of language, respective of its context. the context is constantly changing respective of two people, in that, by asking a question, by yawning, anything that arises can alter how something is said or taken. i think what derrida was arguing in the context of your comment, is that above the empirical games, there is a larger context that constantly envelops. meaning, my wedding takes place with and in the larger ideas of weddings already constituted. austin has somewhat escaped this, or if you will, neglected this, by only outlining the abstract form of each agreement. meaning, in reverse of what derrida is arguing, austin is saying that at each moment of a strictly empirical execution of a language performance, the individuals necessarily take into account the preceding context as best fits for convention. true the series will always lag the transformation, but such is the enclosure of becoming. i think your comment also brings up how austin’s ideas relate to time. his are always looking to the past for an execution in the present, whereas you could look at each execution as a necessary beginning to the next execution. this can be shown even simply by showing that, for instance, a marriage execution, if maintained, would provide grounds for another’s execution of the same vow, in so far as it removes a candidate for the “game.” i am not sure if this makes sense but i tried. hopefully by taking the book chapter by chapter it will help me reduce my tendency to branch out erratically.
alec, i think i understand. i was just thinking about something similar after posting. along the lines of the “game” of language, respective of its context. the context is constantly changing respective of two people, in that, by asking a question, by yawning, anything that arises can alter how something is said or taken. i think what derrida was arguing in the context of your comment, is that above the empirical games, there is a larger context that constantly envelops. meaning, my wedding takes place with and in the larger ideas of weddings already constituted. austin has somewhat escaped this, or if you will, neglected this, by only outlining the abstract form of each agreement. meaning, in reverse of what derrida is arguing, austin is saying that at each moment of a strictly empirical execution of a language performance, the individuals necessarily take into account the preceding context as best fits for convention. true the series will always lag the transformation, but such is the enclosure of becoming. i think your comment also brings up how austin’s ideas relate to time. his are always looking to the past for an execution in the present, whereas you could look at each execution as a necessary beginning to the next execution. this can be shown even simply by showing that, for instance, a marriage execution, if maintained, would provide grounds for another’s execution of the same vow, in so far as it removes a candidate for the “game.” i am not sure if this makes sense but i tried. hopefully by taking the book chapter by chapter it will help me reduce my tendency to branch out erratically.
Well, it’s worth noting too that Derrida and Austin are dealing in two completely different vocabularies. But basically, I think, whereas Austin says that by invoking a given convention I am entered into the rules of that convention, subjectified under it, Derrida says it isn’t that easy; I am transforming the rules of that convention, because the convention is constitutive of language, which is absolutely absent and deferential. But I haven’t read either Derrida or Austin in a long time, so I could be completely off the mark. I think you’ve got it completely, though.
Well, it’s worth noting too that Derrida and Austin are dealing in two completely different vocabularies. But basically, I think, whereas Austin says that by invoking a given convention I am entered into the rules of that convention, subjectified under it, Derrida says it isn’t that easy; I am transforming the rules of that convention, because the convention is constitutive of language, which is absolutely absent and deferential. But I haven’t read either Derrida or Austin in a long time, so I could be completely off the mark. I think you’ve got it completely, though.
cool. thanks mike.
cool. thanks mike.
my apologize must be worded –
apology, dipshit.
my apologize must be worded –
apology, dipshit.
fixed it, thanks.
fixed it, thanks.