Dear Editors,
I would like to suggest a possible refinement to the entry illocution.
The current etymology derives the prefix from in-(1) “not, opposite of”. However, in J. L. Austin’s technical usage (How to Do Things with Words), the term appears primarily to reflect the locative/directional Latin prefix in- (cf. OED il- ¹ < in- ² “in, into, within”) rather than the negative prefix, thus readers might find the current entry potentially misleading.
This interpretation is supported by Austin’s own characterisation of the illocutionary act as “the act performed in saying something” (How to Do Things with Words, Lecture VIII), as well as by the systematic contrast with perlocution (where per- transparently retains its directional sense “through”).
I offer this observation in case it may be useful for future revision.
With thanks for your excellent resource,
Dariusz Śmietanka
PS:
OED:
— illocution Philos. […] [f. OED il- ¹ + locution.]
— il- ¹ form in L. of the prefix in- ²
— in- ² repr. L. in- adv. and prep., used in combination with verbs or their derivatives, less commonly with other parts of speech, with the senses ‘into, in, within; on, upon; towards, against’…