A lawyer makes a technically valid, logically compelling argument in court. The jury is not persuaded and rules against her client. Which statement best describes this situation under Austin's framework?
AThe illocutionary act (arguing) succeeded; the perlocutionary effect (persuading the jury) was not achieved
BBoth the illocutionary and perlocutionary acts succeeded because the argument was well-formed
CThe illocutionary act failed because the jury did not accept the argument's premises
DNo perlocutionary act occurred because the lawyer did not intend to fail
Illocutionary success is governed by convention and uptake: arguing was successfully performed because the lawyer used the right form in the right context and the jury understood that an argument was being made. Perlocutionary success is governed by causal consequences in the hearer's psychology: whether the jury was actually persuaded. These are independent — you can fully succeed illocutionarily (a valid argument was made) while entirely failing perlocutionarily (no one was convinced). This asymmetry is Austin's key insight.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A speaker makes an offhand comment about a colleague's presentation that was not intended as criticism, but the colleague feels publicly humiliated. Under Austin's framework, what best describes the humiliation?
AAn illocutionary act of insulting, for which the speaker bears full responsibility because they chose the words
BAn unintended perlocutionary effect — causally brought about by the speech act but not aimed at by the speaker
CA perlocutionary act that failed, because the speaker did not intend humiliation
DNot a speech act outcome at all, because the speaker had no communicative intention
Austin distinguished between perlocutionary effects that are 'aimed at' (intended) and those that are merely 'brought about' (unintended causal consequences). The humiliation here was causally produced by the speech act but was not the speaker's goal. This matters for responsibility: we generally hold speakers more accountable for illocutionary acts (deliberate choices about what speech act to perform) than for unintended perlocutionary effects that depend on the hearer's psychology in ways the speaker could not fully control.
Question 3 True / False
If a speaker correctly performs the illocutionary act of warning — using the right words in the right context with the right uptake — the listener is expected to feel alarmed.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
Illocutionary success and perlocutionary success are independent. A warning is successfully performed as a warning when the conventional conditions are met and the hearer understands that a warning has been issued. Whether the hearer actually feels alarmed is a causal consequence that depends on their background beliefs, emotional state, and judgment — none of which the speaker controls. The same warning can alarm one hearer and be dismissed by another. Perlocutionary success can never be guaranteed by any conventional formula.
Question 4 True / False
Perlocutionary effects can be both intended — aimed at by the speaker — and unintended — merely brought about as a causal byproduct of the speech act.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Austin explicitly noted this distinction. A lawyer who argues in order to persuade intends the perlocutionary effect of belief change. A speaker who inadvertently frightens someone with a careless remark brought about a perlocutionary effect they did not intend. This distinction matters for ethics and law: moral and legal responsibility tracks differently for effects that were aimed at versus those that were merely caused. Intended perlocutionary effects are closer to illocutionary planning; unintended ones raise questions about accident, negligence, or recklessness.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does the illocution/perlocution distinction matter for assigning moral or legal responsibility to speakers?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Illocutionary acts are conventional choices — a speaker chooses to promise, insult, or threaten using specific linguistic formulas in specific contexts, so responsibility attaches naturally. Perlocutionary effects run through the hearer's psychology in ways the speaker cannot fully control; whether your reassurance actually reassures depends on the hearer's beliefs and emotional state. Holding speakers responsible for perlocutionary effects they didn't intend and couldn't control would be unfair. Legal and ethical accountability therefore typically targets the illocutionary act performed, not whether the intended (or unintended) effect was achieved.
This distinction has concrete legal implications. Harassment and defamation cases must identify the illocutionary act performed (the insult, the false assertion) rather than just the harm experienced. Incitement law similarly focuses on what speech act was performed and whether it was reasonably likely to produce the harmful effect, rather than holding speakers responsible for any causal consequence that follows from their words. The illocution/perlocution line is where linguistic action meets legal and moral accountability.