performative utterance

Besides the context, the performative utterance itself is unambiguous as well.

However, a performative utterance must also conform to a set of felicity conditions.

Every performative utterance has its own procedure and risks of failure that Austin calls 'infelicities'.

But it is a performative utterance (as such things have been called), a prelude and a readiness for ongoing nonverbal action.

The wording thus has an extended or connotative aspect to it, becoming what Austin called a performative utterance.

A performative utterance is a sentence where an action being performed is done by the utterance itself.

One emphasizes the predetermined conventions surrounding a performative utterance and the clear distinction between text and context.

These rules are the conventions underlying performative utterances and they enable us not only to represent and express ourselves, but also to communicate.

The philosopher Judith Butler offers a political interpretation of the concept of the performative utterance.

As Austin observes, the acts purported to be performed by performative utterances may be socially contested.

Examples (mainly of explicit performative utterances)

However, even dissenting opinions may end in a present tense performative utterance, which is usually some variation on the phrase "I respectfully dissent."

Instead of emphasizing linguistic rules, scholars within this strand stress that the performative utterance is intertwined with structures of power.

However, he criticizes the notion of 'felicity conditions' and the idea that the success of a performative utterance is determined by conventions.

"Performative Utterances."

J. L. Austin introduced the performative utterance as an additional category to 'constatives', statements that can be either true or false.

This caveat draws a parallel to the felicity conditions J. L. Austin requires of performative utterances.

In the 1950s the philosopher of language J. L. Austin introduced the term 'performative utterance' to make clear that 'to say something is to do something'.

(1) Performative utterances are not true or false, that is, not truth-evaluable; instead when something is wrong with them then they are "happy" or "unhappy".

To return to Austin's distinction between constative and performative utterances: Austin eventually concluded correctly that there are no purely constative utterances.

The core of a performative utterance is therefore not constituted by animating intentions, as Austin and Searle would have it, but by the structure of language.

He goes on to say that when something goes wrong in connection with a performative utterance it is, as he puts it, "infelicitous", or "unhappy" rather than false.

The contemporary use of the term goes back to J. L. Austin's development of performative utterances and his theory of locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.

In How to do things with words he introduced the concept of the 'performative utterance', opposing the prevalent principle that sentences are always statements that can be either true or false.

In the U.S., the disposition of an appeal in a majority opinion is usually drafted in the present tense, so that the disposition is itself a performative utterance.