Although perlocution has received more interest lately, it remains the great unthought of Austin’s theory. The privilege he gives to illocution over perlocution, rather than being a necessity of his linguistic theory, is a contestable philosophical claim that leads him, I argue, to exclude from his consideration poetic and other ‘parasitical’ uses of language. Cavell’s reconceptualisation of perlocutions as ‘passionate utterances’, however, provides a more fruitful theoretical framework to approach poetic phenomena. Reading Austin through a Cavellian lens offers keys to make space for the parasitic uses Austin rejected and for poetry within a philosophy of language.
CITATION STYLE
Mills, P. (2022). Poetic Perlocutions: Poetry after Cavell after Austin. Philosophical Investigations, 45(3), 357–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/phin.12328
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.