DOCSLIB.ORG

Performative Speech Act Verbs in Present Day English

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

PERFORMATIVE SPEECH ACT VERBS IN PRESENT DAY ENGLISH ELENA LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ Universidad Complutense de Madrid RESUMEN. En esta contribución se estudian los actos performativos y su influencia en el inglés de hoy en día. A partir de las teorías de J. L. Austin, entre otros autores, se desarrolla un panorama de esta orientación de la filosofía del lenguaje de Austin. PALABRAS CLAVE. Actos performativos, enunciado performativo, inglés. ABSTRACT. This paper focuses on performative speech act verbs in present day English. Reading the theories of J. L. Austin, among others,. With the basis of authors as J. L. Austin, this paper develops a brief landscape about this orientation of Austin’s linguistic philosophy. KEY WORDS. Performative speech act verbs, performative utterance, English. 1. INTRODUCCIÓN 1.1. HISTORICAL THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1.1. The beginnings: J.L. Austin The origin of performative speech acts as we know them today dates back to the William James Lectures, the linguistic-philosophical theories devised and delivered by J.L. Austin at Harvard University in 1955, and collected into a series of lectures entitled How to do things with words, posthumously published in 1962. Austin was one of the most influential philosophers of his time. In these lectures, he provided a thorough exploration of performative speech acts, which was an extremely innovative area of study in those days. In the following pages, Austin’s main ideas (together with some comments by other authors) will be presented. 1.1.1.1. Constative – performative distinction In these lectures, Austin begins by making a clear distinction between constative and performative utterances. Constative utterances are basically presented by him as statements which describe the world, or that report or constate some fact. They are subject to truth- INTERLINGÜÍSTICA. ISSN 1134-8941. 16 (2), 2005, pp. 685-702. 686 ELENA LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ conditional verification. On the other hand, performative utterances cannot undergo these conditions, since this type of utterances does not describe, constate or report anything. Austin compares the statement or constative utterance and the performative utterance, taking into account the main difference between them, i.e., that the former can be true or false, and the latter can be happy or unhappy. The truth of a statement such as: «‘He is running’» (Austin 1962: 46), relies on the fact that he is running; while it is the happiness of the performative ‘I apologize’ which makes it the fact that I am apologizing: and my success in apologizing depends on the happiness of the performative utterance ‘I apologize’. This is what Austin (1962: 47) calls the «‘performative-constative’» distinction, which is a doing – saying distinction. Austin established that: «(1) the performative should be doing something as opposed to just saying something; and (2) the performative is happy or unhappy as opposed to true or false» (Austin 1962: 133). 1.1.1.2. Description of the performative utterance In performative utterances, some kind of action is being done at the moment of uttering by the person who utters. Austin gives the following characteristics of performative utterances: - they are utterances which belong to the grammatical category of ‘statement’. - grammatically, they occur in the first person singular present indicative active. - they are utterances which do not ‘describe’, ‘report’ or constate anything; and which cannot undergo a ‘true or false’ categorization. - the uttering of the ‘statement’ carries out the act named by the verb, that is, it implies something more than just saying some words. A number of expressions for the type of utterance that he is trying to describe, i.e., the performative utterance, are proposed by AUSTIN (1962: 6): «performative sentence», «performative utterance» or «for short, ‘a performative’». He names this type of utterance in yet another way: «performatories» (Austin 1962: 12); and provides an explanation for these terms: The name is derived, of course, from ‘perform’, the usual verb with the noun ‘action’: it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action – it is not normally thought of as just saying something. (AUSTIN 1962: 6-7). 1.1.1.3. Conditions on Performative Speech Acts Austin claims that in order to perform an act: - the uttering of certain words (and not others) is necessary - the circumstances must be appropriate - the speaker or some other person(s) should also perform other ‘physical’ of ‘mental’ actions accompanying the utterance of the specific words which lead to the performance of the act. 1.1.1.4. Felicity conditions INTERLINGÜÍSTICA. ISSN 1134-8941. 16 (2), 2005, pp. 685-702. PERFORMATIVE SPEECH ACT VERBS IN PRESENT DAY ENGLISH 687 There are a number of necessary conditions for «the ‘happy’ functioning of a performative», AUSTIN (1962: 14); and AUSTIN (1962: 14) formulates them thus: (A.1). There must exist an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect, that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances, and further, (A.2) the particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked. (B.1) The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and (B.2) completely. (!.1) Where, as often, the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings, or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant, then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts or feelings, and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves, and further (!.2) must actually so conduct themselves subsequently. (AUSTIN 1962: 14-15). I would like to make a brief comment on the symbol ! used by Austin for the last two types of conditions which have been previously presented. Austin used this symbol and expressly mentioned that he did so in order to make a big difference between the A and B categories as opposed to the ! categories. This symbol corresponds to the letter ‘C’ belonging to the Greek alphabet. This nomenclature is not followed by other authors such as Levinson or Thomas, who use the Roman letter ‘C’ instead when referring to this type of infelicities. Going back to the necessary conditions for the ‘happy’ functioning of a performative, it should be noticed that the unobservance of any of these necessary conditions will result in an unhappy performative utterance. 1.1.1.5. Types of infelicities Austin classified the different kinds of infelicities by giving them different names. He called infelicities of types A and B misfires. Austin explains that when an utterance is a misfire, we say that the procedure is disallowed or botched, and that the act is void or without effect. If the act is void, then the purported act is not done, but other things may have been done through this act. If the act is without effect, that does not mean that it is «without consequences, results or effects» (AUSTIN 1962: 17). Austin continues expounding that we may speak of the act as being a purported act or an attempt, and that we may say that «we […] ‘went through some form of marriage’ by contrast with ‘married’» (AUSTIN 1962: 16). In the case of an offence against any of the A and B rules (i.e., uttering the words incorrectly, or not being the person appointed for the carrying out of a certain act, or not being in possession of the necessary conditions to perform that act), then the act «is not successfully performed at all, does not come off, is not achieved» (AUSTIN 1962: 16). Infelicities of type A receive the name of misinvocations. Within misinvocations, Austin distinguished two types of infelicity: infelicities of type A.1, which he called non-plays at an early stage, and later rejected that name; and infelicities of type A.2, which Austin called either misapplications or misplays. Regarding the infelicities of type A.2, which he called misapplications, he illustrates the point by saying that «‘I appoint you’» (AUSTIN 1962: 34) will result in a misapplication if uttered when that person (or someone else) has already been appointed, or when the person who appoints is not the one designed to do so, etc. Infelicities of INTERLINGÜÍSTICA. ISSN 1134-8941. 16 (2), 2005, pp. 685-702. 688 ELENA LÓPEZ ÁLVAREZ type B are called misexecutions or miscarriages. Within these, Austin called infelicities of type B.1 flaws or misexecutions; and with specific reference to flaws (i.e., B.1 infelicities), Austin claims that the procedure is appropriate to persons and circumstances, but it is not executed correctly. On the other hand, he called infelicities of type B.2 hitches or non-executions. In the case of hitches, there is an attempt to execute the procedure, but the act is not completed. For example, in «‘I bet you sixpence’» (Austin 1962: 36), if there is no uptake such as ‘You’re on’ then the bet is «abortive» (AUSTIN 1962: 37). Regarding the infelicities of type !, they receive the name of abuses or disrespects. With respect to the infringement of the ! rules, the act can be ‘professed’ or ‘hollow’, i.e., an act which is not implemented or not consummated. There are two kinds of infelicities of type !, viz. those of type !.1, called insincerities or dissimulations; and those of type !.2, which Austin did not have a name for, but which at some point he called non-fulfilments, disloyalties, infractions, indisciplines or breaches. It is worth noticing that the !.1 and !.2 infelicities go through an unhappy performance, but they are not void. For example, if the person uttering the performative does not have the “requisite feelings” (AUSTIN 1962: 40), the act is not void because it is performed, though insincerely.
Recommended publications
  • A Cross-Cultural and Pragmatic Study of Felicity Conditions in the Same-Sex Marriage Discourse

    A Cross-Cultural and Pragmatic Study of Felicity Conditions in the Same-Sex Marriage Discourse

    Journal of Foreign Languages, Cultures and Civilizations June 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 58-72 ISSN 2333-5882 (Print) 2333-5890 (Online) Copyright © The Author(s). All Rights Reserved. Published by American Research Institute for Policy Development DOI: 10.15640/jflcc.v4n1a7 URL: https://doi.org/10.15640/jflcc.v4n1a7 A Cross-Cultural and Pragmatic Study of Felicity Conditions in the Same-Sex Marriage Discourse Hashim Aliwy Mohammed Al-Husseini1 & Ghayth K. Shaker Al-Shaibani2 Abstract This paper investigates whether there are Felicity Conditions (FCs) for the same-sex marriage as being a contemporary practice of marriage relations in some countries. As such, the researchers adopt Austin’s (1962) Felicity Conditions (FCs) to examine if conditions of satisfaction are applicable to the same-sex marriage in Christian and Islamic cultures. The researchers focus on analysing and discussing the social, religious, and linguistic conventional procedures of the speech acts of marriage, specifically in the same-sex marriage discourse. We find out that same-sex marriage in Christianity is totally different from the traditional marriage with regard to the social, religious, and linguistic conventions. Consequently, we concluded that same-sex marriage discourse has no FCs in contrast to the traditional marriage in Christianity as well as marriage in Islam which has not changed in form and opposite sex marriage. Keyword: Felicity Conditions; homosexual relations; marriage speech acts; same-sex marriage discourse; conventional procedures 1. Introduction Trosborg (2010, p.3) stated that one can principally affirm that all pragmatic aspects, namely speech act theory and theory of politeness, may be liable to cross-cultural comparisons between two speech communities and/or two cultures.
  • Honorificity, Indexicality and Their Interaction in Magahi

    Honorificity, Indexicality and Their Interaction in Magahi

    SPEAKER AND ADDRESSEE IN NATURAL LANGUAGE: HONORIFICITY, INDEXICALITY AND THEIR INTERACTION IN MAGAHI BY DEEPAK ALOK A dissertation submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Linguistics Written under the direction of Mark Baker and Veneeta Dayal and approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey October, 2020 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Speaker and Addressee in Natural Language: Honorificity, Indexicality and their Interaction in Magahi By Deepak Alok Dissertation Director: Mark Baker and Veneeta Dayal Natural language uses first and second person pronouns to refer to the speaker and addressee. This dissertation takes as its starting point the view that speaker and addressee are also implicated in sentences that do not have such pronouns (Speas and Tenny 2003). It investigates two linguistic phenomena: honorification and indexical shift, and the interactions between them, andshow that these discourse participants have an important role to play. The investigation is based on Magahi, an Eastern Indo-Aryan language spoken mainly in the state of Bihar (India), where these phenomena manifest themselves in ways not previously attested in the literature. The phenomena are analyzed based on the native speaker judgements of the author along with judgements of one more native speaker, and sometimes with others as the occasion has presented itself. Magahi shows a rich honorification system (the encoding of “social status” in grammar) along several interrelated dimensions. Not only 2nd person pronouns but 3rd person pronouns also morphologically mark the honorificity of the referent with respect to the speaker.
  • Performativity SunCana Laketa, Institute of Geography, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Performativity SunCana Laketa, Institute of Geography, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

    Performativity Suncana Laketa, Institute of Geography, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchâtel, Switzerland © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. This article is a revision of the previous edition article by D. P. McCormack, volume 8, pp 133–136, © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. Glossary Agency Is an ability of the subject to act. In other words, it is a capacity of both human and nonhuman subjects to produce a specific effect. Discourse Refers to implicit, taken-for-granted, and often unspoken sets of ideas and ways of knowing that are imbued with power. As a set of ideas and ways of knowing, discourse gives meaning to written and spoken language. Identity Is an articulation of one’s social affiliation, both individually and as a group. Materiality Refers to the objects and substances that constitute matterdhuman and nonhuman bodies, nature, elements, and things. Representation Is a process of giving meaning to objects and things through linguistic signs and symbols. Sociospatial practices Refer to activities such as walking, talking, driving, playing, and numerous other everyday practices that produce and reproduce both society and space. Space In human geography is not a fixed and bounded physical location, but a set of complex and intertwined social relations that take place in, and shape, the physical dimensions of space. Some authors differentiate between space and place; they define place as a process of ascribing meaning to undifferentiated space. Others, however, use both terms interchangeably. Spatiality Signifies an attribute or a feature that is related to space. In human geography, the term refers to the way space is implicated in social life.
  • Teaching Performative Verbs and Nouns in EU Maritime Regulations

    Teaching Performative Verbs and Nouns in EU Maritime Regulations

    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 141 ( 2014 ) 90 – 95 WCLTA 2013 Teaching Performative Verbs and Nouns in EU Maritime Regulations Silvia Molina Plaza a Technical University of Madrid, ETSIN Avda de la Victoria, 4, Madrid , 28040, Spain Abstract This paper is concerned with performative speech acts in European Union fisheries legislation with a view to relating the semantic analysis of directive and expressive speech act verbs to politeness strategies for the management of positive and negative face. The performative verbs used in directive and expressive speech acts belong to the semantic domain of communication verbs. The directive verbs occurring in the material are: appeal, authorize, call upon, conclude, invite, promise, request, urge and warn while the expressive verbs are: congratulate, express (gratitude), pay (tribute) and thank. The semantic analysis of directive verbs draws on Leech’s framework for illocutionary verbs analysis (Leech 1983: 218). The analysis suggests that the choice of directive and expressive speech act verbs and their co-occurrence with particular addressees are motivated by the socio-pragmatic situation. 30 Naval Engineering students from the UPM also learned how these speech act verbs are used in context in the subject English for Professional and Academic Communication (2011-2012). © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCLTA 2013. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of WCLTA 2013.
  • Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground

    Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground

    Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique 40 | 2016 Exclamation et intersubjectivité Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground Franz d’Avis Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/rsp/279 DOI: 10.4000/rsp.279 ISSN: 2610-4377 Publisher Presses universitaires d'Orléans Printed version Date of publication: 1 March 2017 Number of pages: 17-34 ISSN: 1285-4093 Electronic reference Franz d’Avis, « Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground », Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique [Online], 40 | 2016, Online since 01 March 2018, connection on 10 December 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rsp/279 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/rsp.279 Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique Revue de Sémantique et Pragmatique. 2016. Numéro 40. pp. 17-34. Exclamatives, Normalcy Conditions and Common Ground Franz d’Avis Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz 1. INTRODUCTION The starting point for the search for exclamative sentence types in a lan- guage is often the description of a certain function that utterances of sentences of that type would have. One formulation could be: With the use of an excla- mative sentence, a speaker expresses that the state of affairs described by a proposition given in the sentence is not in accordance with his expectations about the world.1 Exclamative utterances may include an emotional attitude on the part of the speaker, which is often described as surprise in the literature, cf. Altmann (1987, 1993a), Michaelis/Lambrecht (1996), d’Avis (2001), Michaelis (2001), Roguska (2008) and others. Surprise is an attitude that is based on the belief that something unexpected is the case, see from a psychological point of view Reisenzein (2000).
  • Felicity Conditions for Counterfactual Conditionals Containing Proper

    Felicity Conditions for Counterfactual Conditionals Containing Proper

    Counterfactuals in Context: Felicity conditions for counterfactual conditionals containing proper names William Robinson A thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts University of Washington 2013 Committee: Toshiyuki Ogihara Barbara Citko Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Linguistics 2 ©Copyright 2013 William Robinson 3 University of Washington Abstract Counterfactuals in Context: Felicity conditions for counterfactual conditionals containing proper names William Robinson Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Toshiyuki Ogihara PhD Linguistics Linguistics This thesis provides felicity conditions for counterfactual conditionals containing proper names in which essential changes to an individual are counterfactually posited using contrastive focus in either the antecedent or consequent clause. The felicity conditions proposed are an adaptation of Heim’s (1992) CCP Semantics into Kratzer’s (1981) truth conditions for counterfactual conditionals in which the partition function f(w) serves as the local context of evaluation for the antecedent clause, while the set of worlds characterized by the antecedent serves as the local context for the consequent clause. In order for the felicity conditions to generate the right results, it is shown that they must be couched in a rigid designator/essentialist framework inspired by Kripke (1980). This correctly predicts that consequents containing rigid designators are infelicitous when their input context—the set of worlds accessible from the antecedent clause— does not contain a suitable referent. 4 Introduction We use counterfactual conditionals like (1a-b) to make claims about the “ways things could have been,” not about the way things actually are1 (Lewis 1973, p.84). The antecedent clause of a counterfactual conditional posits a change to the actual world from which the consequent clause would/might follow.
  • About Pronouns

    About Pronouns

    About pronouns Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson Lund University Abstract This essay claims that pronouns are constructed as syntactic relations rather than as discrete feature bundles or items. The discussion is set within the framework of a minimalist Context-linked Grammar, where phases contain silent but active edge features, edge linkers, including speaker and hearer features. An NP is phi- computed in relation to these linkers, the so established relation being input to context scanning (yielding reference). Essentially, syntax must see to it that event participant roles link to speech act roles, by participant linking (a subcase of context linking, a central computational property of natural language). Edge linkers are syntactic features–not operators–and can be shifted, as in indexical shift and other Kaplanian monster phenomena, commonly under control. The essay also develops a new analysis of inclusiveness and of the different status of different phi-features in grammar. The approach pursued differs from Distributed Morphology in drawing a sharp line between (internal) syntax and (PF) externalization, syntax constructing relations–the externalization process building and expressing items. Keywords: Edge linkers, pronouns, speaker, phi-features, context linking, context scanning, indexical shift, inclusiveness, bound variables 1. Introduction* Indexical or deictic items include personal pronouns (I, you, she, etc.), demonstrative pronouns (this, that, etc.), and certain local and temporal adverbials and adjectives (here, now, presently, etc.). In the influential Kaplanian approach (Kaplan 1989), indexicals are assumed to have a fixed reference in a fixed context of a specific speech act or speech event. Schlenker (2003:29) refers to this leading idea as the fixity thesis, stating it as follows: Fixity Thesis (a corollary of Direct Reference): The semantic value of an indexical is fixed solely by the context of the actual speech act, and cannot be affected by any logical operators.
  • The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation Author(S): Janet E

    The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation Author(S): Janet E

    The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation Author(s): Janet E. Ainsworth Reviewed work(s): Source: The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 103, No. 2 (Nov., 1993), pp. 259-322 Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/797097 . Accessed: 16/08/2012 14:37 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Yale Law Journal. http://www.jstor.org Articles In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation Janet E. Ainswortht CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION....................................... 260 II. How WE Do THINGS WITH WORDS .............................. 264 A. Performative Speech Acts . ................................. 264 B. Indirect Speech Acts as Performatives ......... ................ 267 C. Conversational Implicature Modifying Literal Meaning ..... ........ 268 III. GENDER AND LANGUAGEUSAGE: A DIFFERENTREGISTER .271 A. Characteristics of the Female Register . .275 1. Hedges .276 2. Tag Questions .277 t Associate Professorof Law, Universityof Puget Sound School of Law. B.A. BrandeisUniversity, M.A. Yale University, J.D. HarvardLaw School. My appreciativethanks go to HarrietCapron and Blain Johnson for their able research assistance.
  • 324 10 2 Pragmatics I New Shorter

    324 10 2 Pragmatics I New Shorter

    Speaker’s Meaning, Speech Acts, Topic and Focus, Questions Read: Portner: 24-25,190-198 LING 324 1 Sentence vs. Utterance • Sentence: a unit of language that is syntactically well-formed and can stand alone in discourse as an autonomous linguistic unit, and has a compositionally derived meaning: – A sentence consists of a subject and a predicate: S NP VP. – [[ [NP VP] ]]M,g = 1 iff [[NP]]M,g ∈ [[VP]]M,g • Utterance: The occurrence (use) of a sentence (or possibly smaller constituent that can stand alone) at a given time. • Bill: Sue is coming. Jane: Yes, Sue is coming. – Two utterances of the same sentence. Same meaning. • Bill: “I am tired.” Jane: “ I am tired, too” – Two utterances of the same sentence. Two different meanings. • Semantics studies the meaning of sentences; pragmatics studies the meaning of utterances. LING 324 2 Semantic Meaning vs. Speaker Meaning • A: Most of the people here seem pretty glum. • B: Not everybody. The man drinking champagne is happy. • A: Where? • B: That guy! (pointing) • A: He’s not drinking champagne. He’s drinking sparkling water. The only person drinking champagne is crying on the couch. See? • B: Well, what I meant was that the first guy is happy. [c.f. Donnellan 1966, Kripke 1977] LING 324 3 • The semantic (or expression) meaning of a sentence (or a smaller constituent) is its literal meaning, based on what the words individually mean and the grammar of the language. • The speaker’s meaning of a sentence is what the speaker intends to communicate by uttering it. • These often coincide, but can diverge.
  • Performative Sentences and the Morphosyntax-Semantics Interface in Archaic Vedic

    Performative Sentences and the Morphosyntax-Semantics Interface in Archaic Vedic

    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Journal of South Asian Linguistics JSAL volume 1, issue 1 October 2008 Performative Sentences and the Morphosyntax-Semantics Interface in Archaic Vedic Eystein Dahl, University of Oslo Received November 1, 2007; Revised October 15, 2008 Abstract Performative sentences represent a particularly intriguing type of self-referring assertive clauses, as they constitute an area of linguistics where the relationship between the semantic-grammatical and the pragmatic-contextual dimension of language is especially transparent. This paper examines how the notion of performativity interacts with different tense, aspect and mood categories in Vedic. The claim is that one may distinguish three slightly different constraints on performative sentences, a modal constraint demanding that the proposition is represented as being in full accordance with the Common Ground, an aspectual constraint demanding that there is a coextension relation between event time and reference time and a temporal constraint demanding that the reference time is coextensive with speech time. It is shown that the Archaic Vedic present indicative, aorist indicative and aorist injunctive are quite compatible with these constraints, that the basic modal specifications of present and aorist subjunctive and optative violate the modal constraint on performative sentences, but give rise to speaker-oriented readings which in turn are compatible with that constraint. However, the imperfect, the present injunctive, the perfect indicative and the various modal categories of the perfect stem are argued to be incompatible with the constraints on performative sentences. 1 Introduction Performative sentences represent a particularly intriguing type of self-referring assertive clauses, as they constitute an area of linguistics where the relationship between the semantic-grammatical and the pragmatic-contextual dimension of language is especially transparent.
  • Performance, Not Performativity: an Embodied Critique of Post-Structural IR Theory

    Performance, Not Performativity: an Embodied Critique of Post-Structural IR Theory

    Performance, Not Performativity: An Embodied Critique of Post-Structural IR Theory Ringmar, Erik 2014 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Ringmar, E. (2014). Performance, Not Performativity: An Embodied Critique of Post-Structural IR Theory. Paper presented at Performativity and Agency in International Politics, Goethe Universitet, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Download date: 04. Oct. 2021 Performance, Not Performativity: An Embodied Critique of Post-structural IR Theory Erik Ringmar, Lund University, Sweden Much of what takes place in world politics is best described not as events but as performances. Things are not just happening by themselves, but they are staged and made to happen, and to appear, in a certain fashion.
  • What Do We Mean by Performativity in Organization and Management Studies? the Uses and Abuses of Performativity1

    What Do We Mean by Performativity in Organization and Management Studies? the Uses and Abuses of Performativity1

    What do we mean by performativity in organization and management studies? The uses and abuses of performativity1 Jean-Pascal Gond Cass Business School, City University London [email protected] Laure Cabantous Cass Business School, City University London [email protected] Nancy Harding Bradford University School of Management Emm Lane [email protected] Mark Learmonth Durham University Business School, Ushaw College, [email protected] Abstract John Austin introduced the formulation “performative utterance” in his 1962 book How to do things with words. This term and the related concept of performativity have subsequently been interpreted in numerous ways by social scientists and philosophers such as Lyotard, Butler, Callon, or Barad, leading to the co-existence of several foundational perspectives on performativity. In this paper we review and evaluate critically how organization and management theory (OMT) scholars have used these perspectives, and how the power of performativity has, or has not, stimulated new theory-building. In performing a historical and critical review of performativity in OMT, our analysis reveals the uses, abuses and under- uses of the concept by OMT scholars. It also reveals the lack of both organizational conceptualizations of performativity and analysis of how performativity is organized. Ultimately our aim is to provoke a ‘performative turn’ in OMT by unleashing the power of the performativity concept to generate new and stronger organizational theories. Key-words: Austin, Organization theory, Performativity, Translation, Theory-building !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!A version of this paper is currently under review at the International Journal of Management Reviews.! ! 1! What do we mean by performativity in organization and management studies? The uses and abuses of performativity 1.