Uttering geographies: Speech acts, felicity conditions and modes of existence

Abstract

The geographies of speech has become stuck in a form of interpretation which considers the potentially infinite detail of spoken performances understood within their equally infinitely complex contexts. This paper offers a way forward by considering the uses, critiques and reworkings of J.L. Austin’s speech act theory by those who study everyday talk, by deconstructionists and critical theorists, and by Bruno Latour in his AIME (‘An Inquiry into Modes of Existence’) project. This offers a rethinking of speech acts in terms of power and space, and a series of ontological differentiations between forms of utterances and enunciations beyond human speech.

The Fulfillment of Felicity Conditions in Speech Acts in Winfrey’s Speech Learn from Every Mistake

“…Some researchers also conducted research focused on the felicity condition in speech act (e.g. Al-Husseini & A-Shaibani; 2016; Hadiati, 2019;Adnyasuari, 2017;Ogborn, 2020;Toumi, 2010). Hadiati (2019) conducted research focused on the felicity conditions in Banyumasan daily conversation in some types of speech act, directive, declarative, expressive, representative, and commisive.…”

More than words: Geopolitics and language

“…From a different conceptual angle, Katherine Brickell also highlights the role of the embodied and sensory in proverbial utterances, concluding:

Eliciting work more broadly on practice moves the level of geographical attention to the physical and habitual and pushes the linguistic turn from its overarching focus on discourse analysis to consider what disposes people to speak in the way they do, how and when they do, and how their lived experiences and inherited knowledge are interwoven into these auditory moments (Brickell, 2013, p. 217).

Brickell is not alone in recognising the powerful role of speech beyond words, turning attention to how speech and space are co‐produced (e.g., Livingstone, 2007; Tuan, 1991). Indeed, beyond the sub‐field of geopolitics per se, recent decades have seen geographers attending to speech as practice widely defined (e.g., Kanngieser, 2012; Ogborn, 2011, 2019; Valentine et al, 2008), and to auditory aspects, accents, and pronunciation (Devadoss, 2020; Kearns & Berg, 2002). These are all highly diverse but important contributions to how language can and should be interrogated further in geographical scholarship, not least in the study of geopolitics.…”

“…Brickell is not alone in recognising the powerful role of speech beyond words, turning attention to how speech and space are co-produced (e.g., Livingstone, 2007;Tuan, 1991). Indeed, beyond the sub-field of geopolitics per se, recent decades have seen geographers attending to speech as practice widely defined (e.g., Kanngieser, 2012;Ogborn, 2011Ogborn, , 2019Valentine et al, 2008), and to auditory aspects, accents, and pronunciation (Devadoss, 2020;Kearns & Berg, 2002). These are all highly diverse but important contributions to how language can and should be interrogated further in geographical scholarship, not least in the study of geopolitics.…”

Wordplay, world‐play, and interdisciplinary imaginations

“…This “illocutionary speech” act was then a disciplinary turning point (Ogborn, 2019). Galton’s assiduous attention to language reveals his knowledge of RGS audiences and intention that the discussion of “Scope and methods” be accessible via vernacular English.…”

“…Geographical methods have been perceived as a language for thinking globally that was prized by anarchists (Keighren et al, 2012, p. 306). By drawing from post‐structuralist, feminist, and critical race histories as well as the methodology of Bruno Latour’s AIME project, which critique the Oxford linguistic philosopher J. L. Austin’s concept of “speech acts,” Miles Ogborn’s “uttering geographies” recast speech as a “power‐laden and space‐making activity” (2019, p. 2). Thus, certain word assemblages that are performed in “illocutionary speech” in specific contexts before particular audiences enact specific deeds, elicit affectual responses from listeners, and effect transformations to legal, political, social, and disciplinary worlds.…”