Based on a thorough analysis of the use of natural language Austin criticized philosophers who, in his view, was operated pretentious and vague requirements (cp. With Lockean intellectual "cleansing", which means it was clarifying language). Based on the understanding that provides a natural language, he was skeptical criticized metaphysics (and positivism). At the same time he was trying to destroy the philosophical (theoretically justified) skepticism. Austin distinguished descriptive, or descriptive (stating) the statements and so-called performative (performing some action) statements. Saying "I am walking" is a descriptive (it asserts something). Saying "I promise ..." is a statement that at the same time will be the fulfillment of some action (it takes effect) [See. J.Austin. How to Do Things with Words. - Oxford, 1962.]. If the mayor in the official ceremony says: "I refer to this street" Permanent road "," it makes no description (descriptions), and performs the action, and it gives the name of the street. (Note that this is true, so long as everything is done as it should be-_ but that is the social role and function are what they should be in such ceremonies). Thus, Austin drew attention to the relationship between language and the linguistic expression of the user (and the social context within which the language user expresses himself). These relationships can be investigated psychologically. But for Austin to study them is the task of philosophical (conceptual) analysis. Study the relationship between the user language and linguistic expression is often called "pragmatic" (while the study of language structure is called "syntactic" and "semantic" research on the various meanings of language). If we use this terminology, we can say that Austin interesuetsyapragmatikoy in the philosophical sense. In the post-war Austin philosophy, therefore, is a key figure in turning to linguistic philosophy and the philosophy of speech acts (the so-called linguistic or pragmatic turn). In order to better analyze and understand the different types of speech acts, Austin developed a threefold conceptual scheme in which different lokutivnye, illocutionary and perlocutionary speech acts. Perlocutionary force of the speech act is related to the causal relations. When I say, for example, "hand grenade behind you can explode at any moment," the utterance of this phrase may force you to escape. In saying this, I "causes" action on your part. Speech act thus possesses perlocutionary force. But even if you do not start to run, I did warn you, saying this proposal. In accordance with the agreements in order to prevent others as well as to remove the blame from themselves for your wound, as I warned you, my speech act is successful, even if you ignored my message. Illocutionary force of the speech act, therefore, is related to the implementation of the agreements, but no causal effects. (Please note the following parallel: Mayor assigns the name of the street in accordance with the agreements, not by virtue of the causal effect). Lokutivny aspect of speech acts based on what we might call the allegations content (what is expressed). One and the same act of speech can be described in different ways by all these three aspects [Habermas distinguishes between illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects within the framework of the general theory of speech acts, which is a fundamental distinction between communicative and strategic acts. See. Ch. thirty].