This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Linguistics: Applied Linguistics / Philosophy of language This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Philosophy: Language / Analytic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of language Analytic philosophy

To be honest, I don't see why this article would need inline citations, since it derives from a single source (namely, the book that is mentioned as the reference). In my opinion, it would only be neccessary to have inline citations if another reference would be added (e.g., Searle's "Expression and Meaning"). Then again, I might not have enough wikipedia editing experience to be able to make accurate judgements about this issue. Advice? - Nieske 09:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nieske ( talk • contribs)

I absolutely agree, this article is nothing but a depiction of Austin's theory, so it's completely based on the one given source and inline citations would be pointless. I'll remove the template. -- Kronf ( talk) 14:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC) reply

This entry is very misleading. Even though “felicity condition” is Austin’s term, analyses offered for different illocutionary acts are from Searle (Speech Acts, 1969). For instance, Austin do not mention Searle’s term “essential conditions” and there is nothing corresponding to it in Austin’s account. Austin’s and Searle’s speech act theory are actually quite different, so all this is just confusing. 153.1.36.159 ( talk) 07:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC) reply