“Thus we distinguished the locutionary act (and within it the phonetic, the phatic, and the rhetoric acts) which has a meaning; the illocutionary act which has a certain force in saying something; the perlocutionary act which is the achieving of certain effects by saying something” (121). 

there! you got the most important takeaways! you can move on now. :) 

no, but seriously. there were a few points of real interest. otherwise—many, many weeds amongst which to get lost. the absolute highlights of this edition were Austin’s little asides. he can be funny, and i’m glad his little jokes were preserved.

otherwise, though? this could have been an article. also, and even worse, i don’t have a good sense of what’s at stake here, which is really my biggest problem with this text. while i’ve certainly developed an understanding of how we use language and what language doing something can/might mean, i’m not sure what this text has really done… besides create some theoretical categories to play with. perhaps my seminar tomorrow will show me how this isn’t more masturbatory theory, but i’m unconvinced of its real value right now, though i don’t doubt its significance.