Can J.L Austin's Speech Act Theory Provide Useful Insight to Physical Acts?
Hello,
I am interested in whether physical actions can have locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary properties. When I say physical actions, I am concerned with only those physical actions that one intends and thinks about before doing: meeting up with friends, playing the piano, or going to church. So, if I take a nod or a shake of the head as something which is only reactionary, then it is obvious, I think, that those actions have such properties.
On the other hand, what about the act of, say, going to church? Would it be appropriate to assign these properties here? So:
The Locution: The physical act of going to church.
The Illocution: I intend to build a relationship with God by going to church.
The Perlocution: My vicar is happy that I am building a relationship with God.
I am not sure if this is the right lens to look at physical acts through. Maybe the answer is, yes, the theory can describe physical actions but it does so poorly. Also, is it just obvious that physical acts do not need these properties? If Speech Act Theory aims to actually establish what a person means, then isn't this redundant in physical acts? I cannot exactly go to church and not mean or intend to go to church. And while I did not intend for the vicar to be happy about my action, he is nonetheless right that I am building a relationship with God.
Perhaps my example is myopic? There are acts where the locution, illocution, and perlocution all have very different purposes. So:
The Locution: I smack my friend over the head.
The Illocution: I intend to swat a wasp to save my friend!
The Perlocution: My friend is very mad at me.
Let me know where I have gone wrong! 😄