CLA/WLIT 196
Ancient Lyric Poetry

ANCIENT POETICS: SPEECH-ACT

I. Speech-act theory was first formulated by J. L. Austin in How to do Things with Words (Harvard, 1962).
Austin distinguished constative from performative utterances.

A constative utterance is description, statement of fact, a logical proposition that can be engaged with in logical argument.

A performative utterance “is, or is part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as, or as “just”, saying something” (p. 5). The simple, classic example of a performative utterance is “I do” (sc. take this woman to be my lawfully wedded wife). These words, if considered only as description, statement of fact, etc., are basically meaningless. The “meaning” of the utterance is rather the action it accomplishes, that of sealing a marriage.

Austin divided speech-acts into three components:

locutionary act = uttering of words

illocutionary act = the creation of a certain force (in-locution), e.g. promise, threat, suggestion; often communicated by indirection or insinuation, largely dependent on context of performance. meaning of utterance and meaning of utterer may diverge. the illocution is only successful if understood as utterer intended.

perlocutionary act = an effect that results from the communication of both the locution and the illocution (be it straightforward uptake or abuse).

For example: In the speech-act “I’ll be there tonight”, the basic dictionary meanings of the words constitute the locution. The illocutionary force in could be a simple statement, threat, promise (depending on circumstances); the perlocutionary effect might be e.g. reassurance, happiness, fear, anger


II. Speech-act theory, which was first developed in the contexts of linguistics and philosophy of language, was subsequently applied to literary theory. It has been especially fruitful in showing “how language can imply meanings not present in the dictionary sense of the words used nor in the literal meanings of the sentence(s) they constitute”. This led “to the study of the principles of context-generated expectations that make possible the indirect expression of attitudes and propositions”. (W. V. Harris, Dictionary of Concepts in Literary Criticism and Theory [1992], s.v.).

III. Implications for ancient poems. Speech-act theory has been applied extensively to the study of Greek and Latin texts, much less so to the Ancient Near East. Some questions it helps us ask: who was really responsible for the content of a given poem? Is there some other agenda (say, political) beneath the surface meanings of the text? Who was the intended audience? How was the poem and its messages delievered to them? How were the three stages of the speech-act actually achieved "on the ground". Example:

A. In Sumerian poetry, divine society is always conceived on the model of human society, with an absolute ruler who is the guarantor of order. It might be possible to understand the illocutionary force as an implicit statement, on the part of the ruler (where he was the patron of the poem), that "the present order should be upheld", on the grounds that it has divine sanction.

Speech-act theory can also help us think about ancient conceptions of speech and its relation to action:

B. Note how in Genesis 1, word and action are basically indistinguishable:

3: And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

5: God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


C. In John 1:1-3 the same fusion of word and action achieves even greater metaphysical potency because both are indistinguishable from god him(her)self:

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2: He was in the beginning with God; 

3: all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.


D. Charms and incantations also seem a fruitful area for the application of speech-act theory. Consider the Old Akkadian love charm (Foster, 66):

I have seized your mouth full of saliva,
I have seized your lustrous eyes,
I have seized your vagina full of wetness.

These verses employ the past tense. But they do not describing a real past action. As part of a charm they relate to the future, when the caster hopes that the action will be completed. But they may have believed that stating the matter in this way—that is committing the same sort of speech-act as “I do”—would enhance the power of the charm. To be sure, the absence of the beloved is at odds with the wedding scenario described above. But then again, that is only our own set of ritual codes. Considering that the ancient Mesopotamians probably believed that these charms were efficacious, and that they were governed by precise ritual procedures of their own (including these words), they may well have considered it possible “to satisfy all conditions of the speech-act” as described above even without the beloved being present.