Talk:Performative utterance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
OK, now I've shifted this page to Performative speech act and back again. I recall that Austin used this term himself, so it should stay here. This is really a bit of an unfortunate page though - I can see why we want this as a page of its own (especially for the WikiProject Critical Theory), but please keep this separate from a potential page on performativity. This page can hint at the Derridean discussion, but the concept of performativity as used by theorists such as Derrida and Butler really merits a page of its own. Pteron 01:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
-
- The plan was to talk about the term as Austin and Eve Sedgwick use it. I'll leave the Derrida stuff to the deconstructionists. -Seth Mahoney 06:49, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- The page on performativity has stated gathering stuff on the use of the notion in gender studies and science and technology studies. As suggested by Pteron. -- Typewritten 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Sedgwick's account of performatives
This section is in dire need of citation(s). If it is a summarization of her discussion of the periperformative in chapter two of Touching Feeling then it needs to be noted as such. This author has provided an incomplete and unethical account of Sedgwick's words as they relate (especially) to the rest of this article.
[edit] Distinguishing Performative Utterances
"There is a most thorough and accurate study of how "performatives" might be defined following Austin by Jan S. Andersson, "How to define 'Performative'". (However, unfortunately it has been almost completely ignored by the scholarship of the Anglo-American tradition -- perhaps because it is both very densely written and accurately worked out, and thus not easy to read.)"
Umm, weasel words a little. I mean, that is blatantly biased not to mention that there's more than a hint of original scholarship when the author draws a causal connection between the style of prose and analytic philosophy.
[edit] Excellent Job!
So clear and brief, yet accurate, that I could assign it to nonmajor Fr. and Sophs. In my multicultural school, I have to worry about many excellent students who are already doing their best to read English as a second language. I don't want to inflict another twenty dollar book on them for the sake of five or six key concepts. A fine use for Wiki. Thanks so much. George J. Leonard, Prof of Interdisciplinary Humanities, San Francisco State University Profhum (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
