it's the best way of explanation i've ever seen, thank u so much, i rewatched 3 times.

Thanks for this video. It actually helped me a lot!

It's about how people seem to misunderstand words just as words. In reality we change the world by using our word or rather by speech-acts.

It was very informative! Thanks! :)

OMG! I have the Pragmatics final tomorrow.

Austin's argument is in fact the contrary of what is being asserted here: there are not two distinct parts of speech. Constative, finally, are an abstraction of another speech act: asserting something regarding the world. That's the entire point of How to do things with words: it is not that "sometimes words are actions", language is action and words are a part of it.

@martinnolan4332

8 жыл бұрын

can you explain all of this further? thanks.

@AlfonsoPizarroR

8 жыл бұрын

Sure. This video manifests an usual misconception of Austin's works. Probably due to not having read the entire 'How to do things with words' or having done a really superficial reading (or having studied Austin by means of second literature of people that made one of those mistakes). Austin starts from our intuitions of everyday use of language, thus he starts by conceding this kind of utterance which would be only describing the world as being someway or another. This is to make a contrast with what he introduces as the performatives. Nonetheless, as he goes on developing his argument, we realise that, in fact, constatives are *the act of stating*. Any quote in the following comment are referred to the 2nd edition by Sbisà and Urmsson. 'How to do things with words' is a preliminary work of a future research programme (164) in which it is the "total speech act in the total speech situation (...) the only actual phenomenon which, in the last resort, we are engaged in elucidating" (148). The constative in truth is "the performance of an 'illocutionary' act, i.e., performance of an act in saying something as opposed to perfomance of an act of saying something" where the act performed is an 'illocution' (99-100). But, "in general the locutionary act as much as the illocutionary is an abstraction only: every genuine speech act is both." (147)

@Ashamedofmypast

6 жыл бұрын

I would say it like this, Austin’s general line of argument: - distinction between doing and saying (performatives and constatives) - playing out different possibilities for cashing out that distinction - recognise that all these possibilities fail → give up on the distinction - replace the distinction with the idea that all saying is doing - theory of locution/illocution/perlocution

@danielrosler3893

3 жыл бұрын

@@AlfonsoPizarroR Yes, I wonder if something like "Park Closes at 6 PM" proves your point. It isn't merely constative; it's also performative. It does not merely describe. It also tells park visitors when to leave. It's also a command, no?

Oh wow. Best explanation.

I think if I were any of these people, I'd be less concerned with whether my speech was constative or performative, and more concerned with the fact that I'm stranded on a hovering cone in space.

Thank you for the information

Please do a video on forensic linguistics

What about perlocutionary force - when a sentence like "The bridge is about to collapse" is both a constative (true/false) AND does something to the people on the bridge (causes them to get off)?

@sallycaves7893

3 жыл бұрын

Oh I so love perlocutionary forces!! If you say to someone stepping out into the road "Watch the truck!!" and she avoids death, you have informed, commanded, and the command has perlocutionary force. Back to magic again (I have a bit of a beef with Patrick Dunn's Magic Power Language Symbol): Divination might be performative if invocation actually invokes the spirit. "I curse you to have boils on your toes" performs the curse, but what if the curse has no perlocutionary force? Is it still performative? I guess it's an infelicitous one. Is praying performative? Or is it supplication? Or is it a command?

i miss the old format of TED-ED videos

OMG it's Pops form Regular Show

Oh i can fondly remember my first year studying linguistics.

thank you so much for this Video, it really helped me with my exams :)

@yogendrabogati9511

3 жыл бұрын

hi there ,you seem familiar with speech act theory by J.L Austin. Would you mind,guiding me though? 🙏🙏

@yogendrabogati9511

2 жыл бұрын

@@dr.strange5232 Thank you a ton .I can't wait 🤩🤩

It's a topic in the philosophy of language.

Some people just like useless knowledge. Sometimes this knowledge becomes useful, sometimes we just keep it in our knowledge back to save for an interesting conversation.

bow to your master

1.Authorative,Understood,Able to be executed 2.Constative, Performative 3.No Running

so performative words are like magic words?

Some people just like useless knowledge. Sometimes this knowledge becomes useful, sometimes we just keep it in our knowledge back to save for an interesting conversation. Then there are some people who think they already know everything they need to know.

How can you do nothing? That seems like it would be a problem, but it's really not. It is usually understood, when someone says do nothing, that they actually mean be as still as possible, or don't move voluntarily. That act actually requires a bit of effort. So when a sign says "do nothing", you should expect to do something.

A sign says "Do nothing" - if a person does nothing, it is a performative since the person obeyed, or not, since it did not denote an action? ;)

I guess , words can do actions only when our mouth is rapidly closing as we speak. Unless you can make a sound waves of word that enough to make things vibrate. that is! Nothing more , nothing less.

Who is the taget audience for this and what are the implications of this informstion? Like is his a constative video pointing out the obvious to english speakers or a realy compicated video to explain to non native speakers

Useful for linguistics majors, or those who study human language; not limited to English. To the people who don't think this is useful in any way: Did you subscribe to TED channels to be fed knowledge of a single topic? This is 'uncommon' knowledge, to me, at least. And although it may not ever be practical in my life, it's still kind of interesting to know about..

esta genial graciasssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

omg, what is Pops from regular show doing there?

Just because you can do it doesn't mean that everyone can. Should you choose to ignore these rules, you should expect to face the consequences. Remember, you're on someone else's property, you should follow their rules. Yes, a life guard runs, but he is trained. The thing about restrictions is that they're there to keep us safe and keep them from being liable. The first thing that you should be concerned with when you own an area open to the public is what should the rules be.

Cool

This video sounded like claiming that words that you say are going to make you do that.

whatever the reasons are for the categorization, they are not conveyed well in this video

Omg soooooo understandable

Pops yeah

The constative and performative aren't about words, but about statements. Both will use verbs. Besides, not every verb describes an action. So : yes, you missed something.

What if someone says something like "It would be a good idea to go to the park."

Why didn't they wrote "Please, walk carefully or you might fall" instead of "No running".

@Patrick-cy2zh

8 жыл бұрын

It's more clear and easier to put on a sign. The whole sentence you wrote out will look smaller, but "no running" only has two words thus easier to read

Is it just me or the animation kind of laggy?

There's another term for action words. Verbs. I may have missed something, but this video seems to be about needless over-complication of existing labels. I guess this is great technical jargon for English majors, but useless to anyone else.

In addition, most English majors/linguists hate JL Austin besides this one distinction. His philosophy abolishes the need for theories of language, etc.

Pops from Regular Show

thanks im writing an english investigatun so i need this(●'◡'●)

and they definitely don't need to say they'll NEVER run again, lol

Meh if I walk fast I have more chance of falling than I do running and watching out for water. Trying to rush in an unnatural way is more dangerous than running. I think as long as you are aware and understand basic physics you can ignore rules. For example life guards would run. Sometimes authority restricts things rather than helps. And old rules and economies just hold use back.

auuuuch! free word n .. n ... letters? ..releasing alL imposed attachments from next :');

no dah

Yeah this is what happens when you use English... in every other language the imperative (what this girl's calling a performative) is different to the constative. saying 'you run' as a statement uses a different form of the verb 'run' than when telling someone 'to run'

Gazebo ^_^

anda perlu melaraskan kandungan

Regular show

your voice turned me angry 😬😬😬

Weird "this is how it is, how dare you question me" authoritarian tone to this video. I mean, if someone tried to insist that these rules were important - one would be more inclined to laugh in their face. Arbitrary categorisations of a dynamic always-evolving language, counting angels on the head of a pin. Im sure its useful for linguistics, but, just a weird absolutist tone to how its explained.

lol they shouldent be banned just for running

So inaccurate. Words themselves cannot be actions. Who wrote the script?

Descriptive words about words how interesting...NOT

This video is boring and fails to add value to the world. I like defining things too in whichever way I please

Marxists gon marxism

It was very informative! Thanks! :)

@sallycaves7893

3 жыл бұрын

Or was it performative? (kidding)