The Power of Words: Speech Acts in Everyday Life
How J.L. Austin Revolutionised How We Think About Language and Action
When we speak, we might think we are merely conveying information. But for John Langshaw Austin (1911–1960) , a leading figure in the philosophy of language, our words do far more than describe the world: they do things. Austin’s groundbreaking theory of speech acts reshaped how we understand language, showing that words are tools for action, not just vessels for meaning.
In this article, I’ll explore the core ideas of Austin’s work, including his famous book How to Do Things with Words, and how his insights paved the way for contemporary debates about communication and language use. Whether you’re a linguist, a philosopher, or someone simply curious about the power of words, Austin’s ideas are as relevant now as they were when first introduced.
What Are Speech Acts?
Austin’s most influential contribution is the idea of the speech act, a term that describes the ways language performs actions. For example:
Saying, “I apologise,” isn’t just describing your feelings, it is an act of apology.
Uttering, “I promise to help,” is itself a commitment, not a statement about one.
Austin divided speech acts into three layers:
Locutionary Acts: The literal meaning of the words spoken.
Example: “The cat is on the mat” describes a factual state.
Illocutionary Acts: What the speaker intends to achieve by saying those words.
Example: “I now pronounce you married” performs the act of marrying.
Perlocutionary Acts: The effect the words have on the listener.
Example: “Close the window” may result in someone shutting it.
This layered framework allows us to see that language operates not just in terms of truth or falsehood but in its ability to act upon the world.
The Performative and the Constative
In How to Do Things with Words, Austin famously distinguishes between constative utterances and performative utterances:
Constative: Statements that describe reality and can be judged as true or false.
Example: “It’s raining.”
Performative: Utterances that enact something rather than describe it.
Example: “I hereby declare this meeting open.”
However, as Austin developed his ideas, he realised the boundary between these categories wasn’t as clear as it seemed. Even seemingly descriptive statements can have performative elements, depending on context. This realisation led him to focus on the broader ways language functions as action.
J.L. Austin’s shift from distinguishing between constative and performative utterances to a broader understanding of language’s function as action marked a turning point in his thinking. He realised that the categories of “saying” and “doing” often overlap in practice. What initially seemed like a clear boundary dissolved when he examined how context influences the meaning and effect of words. This insight led Austin to focus not only on explicit performatives (e.g., “I promise,” “I apologise”) but on the underlying action-oriented nature of all speech.
Language as Action in Practice
Austin observed that even apparently descriptive statements can have performative elements, depending on their context and the speaker’s intent. For example:
Saying, “The meeting starts at 3 p.m.” might seem purely constative, but in certain contexts, such as when uttered by a chairperson, it performs the act of announcing or setting a schedule.
A phrase like, “It’s cold in here,” could function as more than a statement of fact. Depending on tone and situation, it might act as a request for someone to close a window.
This ability of language to function dynamically; sometimes descriptive, sometimes performative, and often both simultaneously; underscores Austin’s broader view of speech as action embedded in human interaction.
Austin’s Legacy and Influence
Austin’s ideas have had a profound influence on both philosophy and linguistics. His framework of speech acts has been applied to fields as diverse as legal theory, sociolinguistics, and artificial intelligence. Scholars such as John Searle, who will be discussed in my next article, expanded upon Austin’s work, refining and critiquing aspects of his theory.
Austin also provided the foundation for understanding how language is intertwined with social practices. For instance, his insights have been used to study how power operates through speech, whether in politics, law, or interpersonal relationships.
Criticisms and Limitations
While Austin’s work remains foundational, it is not without critique. Some argue that his theory overlooks the complexities of non-verbal communication and multimodal interactions. Others, including feminist and critical theorists, have pointed out that Austin’s framework assumes a relatively homogenous social world, failing to account for how social power dynamics shape what speech can accomplish.
Feminist theorists: Scholars such as Judith Butler and Mary Louise Pratt have critiqued Austin’s work for not fully addressing how gender and social hierarchies influence speech acts. Butler’s Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative (1997) explores how speech acts can be constrained or even weaponised within unequal power structures, particularly in cases of hate speech or marginalised identities. Pratt highlights how linguistic performance operates differently across cultural and gendered boundaries.
Critical theorists: Thinkers like Pierre Bourdieu and Frantz Fanon have examined how Austin’s theory might underestimate the role of power and authority in determining whose speech acts succeed or fail. Bourdieu’s Language and Symbolic Power (1991) argues that linguistic interactions are always embedded within social hierarchies, where not everyone has equal access to the “felicity conditions” required for a speech act to be effective. Fanon’s Black Skin, White Masks (1952) discusses how colonial power structures render the speech of colonised subjects less potent or recognisable as authoritative.
These critiques extend Austin’s insights, showing that the performative power of language is not universal but often contingent on social and historical contexts.
Why Austin Matters Today
In a world where communication is increasingly mediated by technology, Austin’s insights remind us that language is not a passive tool. Every time we send a text, post on social media, or speak face-to-face, we’re doing more than sharing information, we’re shaping relationships, creating commitments, and exercising power.
Understanding Austin’s theory equips us to analyse these everyday interactions more critically. Why does an apology sometimes fail? What makes a promise binding? These questions, rooted in Austin’s work, remain as urgent today as ever.
In the next article, we’ll turn to John Searle, Austin’s intellectual heir, to explore his refinements of speech act theory and his controversial ideas about intentionality and consciousness. How did Searle build on Austin’s legacy, and where did he take the philosophy of language next? Hope to see you there!
©Antoine Decressac — 2024/2025
The Power of Language to Shape Action and Reality
Building on J.L. Austin’s work(read my article on Austin) I want to continue exploring action-oriented language by discussing John Searle’s Speech Act Theory. While Austin introduced the groundbreaking idea that language performs actions, Searle refined and expanded this concept by examining the rules that govern sp…
Suggest reading if you want to know more on this topic:
How to Do Things with Words (J.L. Austin, 1962). Austin’s seminal work introducing the theory of speech acts.
Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language (John Searle, 1969). Builds on Austin’s ideas and lays the foundation for modern speech act theory.
Language as Social Action (Thomas Holtgraves, 2013). An accessible introduction to speech act theory and its applications in communication studies.