2.1.3 Austin's Three Kinds of Speech Acts
J.L.Austin，as a member of the school of natural language，was against logical positivism.He observed that there are many different things that speakers can do with words.His most basic insight was that some utterances are not statements or questions about some pieces ofinformation，but are actions.
At first Austin believes that there are two types of sentences：those that are used to do things and those that are used to describe things.The former are termed“performatives”，which are not“verifiable”，while the latter，“constatives”，are open to true or false test.Performatives are Austin's major concern.In his own words，he is to consider“cases and senses in which to say something is to do something；or in which by saying or in saying something we are doing something”（Austin，1962，p.12）.
He pointed out that those utterances，such as“I do”，“I name this ship Elizabeth”，do not report，or describe a state of affairs，but cause it to happen，such as marrying，baptizing，making a will，betting，promising，and so on.As a result of his study，he termed the sentences realized by these kinds of utterances performatives（which are not to be qualified as true or false，for they are acts，and therefore can be characterized as successful or unsuccessful，happy or unhappy，or felicitous or infelicitous）.
Therefore，he sets out to study the necessary conditions of a successful performative.Violations of any of these conditions will no doubt lead to unsuccessful performatives.
①There must be an accepted conventional procedure having a certain conventional effect，that procedure to include the uttering of certain words by certain persons in certain circumstances，and further.
②The particular persons and circumstances in a given case must be appropriate for the invocation of the particular procedure invoked.
③The procedure must be executed by all participants both correctly and
④Completely
⑤Where，as often，the procedure is designed for use by persons having certain thoughts or feelings or for the inauguration of certain consequential conduct on the part of any participant，then a person participating in and so invoking the procedure must in fact have those thoughts or feelings，and the participants must intend so to conduct themselves，and further
⑥must actually so conduct themselves consequently.
（Austin，1962，pp.14-15）
Later，Levinson simplified the conditions as：
①a.There must be a conventional procedure having a conventional effect
b.The circumstances and persons must be appropriate，as specified in the procedure.
②The procedure must be executed correctly and completely.
③Often，the persons must have the requisite thoughts，feelings or intentions，as specified in the procedure，and if consequent conduct is specified，then the relevant parties must do so.
（Levension，1983，p.229）
If we sin against any of these rules，the performative utterance will be，in one way or another，unhappy，or alternatively，infelicitous.
In the discussion of the above-mentioned conditions，Austin gradually realized that they are not really useful in separating performatives from constatives，so in the middle part of How to Do Things with Words，Austin dismantled the distinction between performatives and constatives.
At first，Austin began to explore whether there are some grammatical criteria for separating them.He noticed that performatives have common grammatical features，namely，they take the first person singular subject，simple present tense，indicative mood，and active voice.But he found out that none of these special characteristics of performative utterances is indispensable to their performance，and that vocabulary is not a reliable criterion，either.For example，in ordering or promising，one does not have to use the word order or promise.
So later，Austin proposed that the production of any utterance consists of four elements：①the sounds and construction；②the literal meaning of an utterance；③the implied intentions of the speaker and④the hearer's understanding and reaction.These four elements form complete process of the production of a speech act.On the other hand，any utterance can be analyzed on three levels.This is just what J.L.Austin had worked for.Austin held that people，in speaking，usually perform three kinds of speech acts：locutionary act，illocutionary act and perlocutionary act.However，speech act theory concern mainly illocutionary act.
A locutionary act involves the uttering of an expression with sense and reference，i.e.using sounds and words with meaning.
An illocutionary act is the act performed in saying the locution，such that what was said had the force of that illocution.
A perlocutionary act is the consequential effects of an utterance on an interlocutor，i.e.what is achieved by saying something.
（Austin，1962，pp.99-103）
①Locutionary Act：A locutionary act in itself can be subdivided into three acts：the phonetic act（the act of uttering certain sounds），the phatic act（the uttering of certain vocables or words，i.e.sounds of certain types，belonging to a certain grammar）and the rhetic act（the performance of an act of using those vocables with a certain more-orless definite sense and reference）.Locutionary act relates to the first two elements in producing a speech act，including the utterance of certain sounds，the utterance of certain words in a certain construction，and the utterance of them with a certain“meaning”，i.e.with a certain sense and with a certain reference.So what locutionary act conveys is the literal or surface meaning of a speech act.
Just as Austin himself points out，the analysis of the locutionary act，though interesting in itself，does not give much help to the analysis of the whole speech act by the superficial analysis of the phonetic features，the literal meaning of the words，sentences or expressions，i.e.“the word or sentence meaning”，to quote Searle（Searle，1979a，p.77），and the grammar of the utterances.Therefore the analysis of the locutionary act does not shed much light on the understanding of the utterances.
②Illocutionary Act：While performing a locutionary act，we also perform an illocutionary act，i.e.the performance of an act in saying something rather than the performance of an act of saying something.The utterances belonging to this category all carry a certain illocutionary force or force，such as“order”，“warning”，and“informing”.As we all know，an utterance with certain linguistic meaning，be it a word，a sentence，or an expression，when used in different ways on different occasions，may have various“speaker's utterance meanings”.In this sense，the analysis of locutionary act is far from enough to discern the speaker's utterance meaning for the reasons stated above，whereas the analysis ofillocutionary acts helps the reader much on his understanding of the speaker's utterance meaning by asking these questions：What does the language-user intend to do by using certain language in a certain context？Does he want to inform，to order，to warn or to promise？
Austin also gives the formula ofillocutionary act：
In saying x I was doing y.
It should be noted that“illocutionary”in fact equals“in-locutionary”，the word“in”here refers to the“in”of“in saying”in the formula.
③Perlocutionary Act：As we all know，when one says something，what he says will certainly produce certain consequential effects upon the feelings，thoughts，or actions of the audience，or of the speaker himself，or of other persons.It can be done with intention.Therefore by analyzing the effects that the utterance has on the interlocutor，a better understanding of the speaker's utterance meaning will be obtained.
The formula of perlocutionary act was also given by Austin：
By saying x I was doing y.
In reality，this formula may be altered a little，so as to make it more explicit and accurate：
By saying x and doing y，I did z.
We should also note here that the“per”in“perlocutionary”is equal to“By”in the above formula.
Among them，locutionary act relates to①the sounds and construction and②the literal meaning of an utterance；while illocutionary act focuses on③the implied intentions ofthe speaker and perlocutionary act is closely connected with④the hearer's understanding and reaction.
Another great achievement Austin makes in the field of SAT is his tentative classification of illocutionary force，which，though is not quite successful and well reasoned，should never be left neglected whenever one is to talk about classifications of illocutionary acts.He classifies illocutionary acts into five quite general classes：verdictives，exercitives，commissives，behabitives，and expositives.