J. L. Austin's 'How To Do Things With Words' (Part 1)

The Nature of Writing and LitCompanion are produced by Sprung Rhythm Publishing.

[Bharg]

Wow. It took me 15 minutes to be prepared for my 15 mark question. I love this! Now I'll read the full book because I can listen to you side by side and then finally make some sense out of it. Thank

[fmnt_]

thanks u maaateee 🥲🥲🥲🥲i'm havin class dedicated to performatives tomorrow(2day)!!! your video really helps me!!! Vika and Alexandra, I hope u're seein this comment 🤓🤓🤓😎🥸🤫

[matthewgreen]

Hi - a question about the production rather than the content - can you tell me what software you used to prepare the presentation? I love the way you hand-annotated the slides - something I'd like to use in my own teaching.

[ПолинаПеткова-яо]

Hi, I loved the presentations. I really wanted to ask how you annotate the slides. Cheers

[infinitafenix]

I enjoyed the explanation, very good and clear. Thank for your work. I much appreciate it!

[oswurth]

The problem with the third (nonsense) statement is that fundamentally a piano isnt a thing that exists. By applying values to the piano one can sensibly say that this thing is more piano like, but to suppose a piano is something that can have other values or attributes applied to it is impossible. It is a thing that is a piano, and a thing can not directly adopt the organic qualities so commonly attributed by humans to other human actions (ex: the piano is thirsty, the paper flew away, the wheel is racing down the street). These are human effectors, a human cause, a human choice to influence the perception of something. Those who study language forget often that they themselves are the ones who invented language. This is just another case of amnesia, the only sensible application of such an idea is as rhetoric or comedy. It simply isn't factual or even probable that a "piano has been drinking heavily" and shouldn't be interpreted as such. What a non-problem. 👏👏👏👏👏

FURTHERMORE "piano" exists at the level of experience and association. I grew up in a house where a TV remote was called a whipper. Having it be a whipper does not make it any less a tv remote, but if I were at a friends house and ask them to pass me the whipper, in their experience governed by their association of what a whipper is, they would be unable to find relative coordinates regarding "whipper", to which they would present confusion or befuddlement. They could be taught this thing is a whipper, and then they could form a rational association between whipper and tv remote, but the expectation of this as intuitive is entirely cultural.

So the next time i ask them to pass me the whipper, they can make a decision regarding my request.

[HiiiDear]

John Langshaw Austin 😅 😂😂 il faut rectifier le prénom Monsieur

[vitazara]

Hey there, thanks a lot for making this series! :) it helps me cause I'm now working on my thesis about speech act ☺

[NikitsuLaw]

Trying to use this in criticizing speech act theory in Securitisation, very interesting stuff. Thanks for the upload, pretty easy to understand and fun to think about.

[sister_t_sleep]

I think you should be able to baptize cows if you wanted to

[saumyaa]

Thankyou so much for the explanation and your voice is really nice and attractive.

[sary]

Thank you for this. I had big issues with understanding the text while I was reading it but this made it much more understandable for me who doesn't have english as mother tongue.

[rimshabashir]

Very fine and student friendly description...thanks...

[franzcieza]

I had to read the first two lectures of his book and do an essay about it but when I didn't understand what J. L. Austin was trying to explain. I tried to read the English version because I noticed some parts weren't accurately translated, but (again) I didn't feel as I really understand. Now, I just saw this video and I get better his ideas. I am very thankful! The explanation wasn't difficult to follow and I enjoyed the examples haha. Keep doing good videos(:

[Budapestpatiypami]

Its so interesting Austin's work. Its the type of text perfect to subvert by Lacan`s thought. Austin totally misses the thing by not knowing anything about the unconcious. Saying it in other words, all the acts of speaking are performatives, because at least when we speak we are implying that someone will listen (either its there in reality or not).

Great video Ill continue watching!

[eriwelli]

Thank you so much for this video, I just read these two chapters and you definitely clarified it much better

[MarkTutorials]

thank you from the heart for the clear explanation

[irenajepuranovic]

Nice, very clear explanation. I used it while preparing this text for my entrance exam for philosophy. Thanx for helping!

[philipgoetz]

Is "The piano has been drinking" from the book? 'Coz it's the refrain of a Tom Waits song.

[davekiss]

My necktie is asleep and the carpet needs a haircut.