Illocution (il-oh-KYOO-shun /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn)
Definition
The act performed in the uttering of words. Where locution names the semantic content of speech — what the words say — illocution names what the speech does at the moment of its issuance. Promising, warning, declaring, demanding, asserting, refusing: these are illocutionary acts. The force is not a consequence of the words; it is embedded in the saying itself. To say “I promise” is not to describe a promise — it is to make one.
Theoretical Lineage
Coined by J.L. Austin in How to Do Things with Words (1962) as part of his tripartite distinction between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts. Developed further by John Searle’s taxonomy of speech act types. Phillips deploys illocution as the specific register in which meaning sovereignty is most vulnerable to colonization — the force of the act is the primary target of illocutionary colonization.
Context of Coinage
Austin’s original term, foundational to Phillips’s theoretical framework. Included here to provide the reader with the technical substrate from which illocutionary colonization, illocutionary suppression, illocutionary manipulation, illocutionary erasure, and illocutionary sovereignty all proceed.
Distinction from Adjacent Terms
Distinct from locution, which names what the words mean semantically. Distinct from perlocution, which names the effect the speech produces in the listener after the fact. Illocution is the force in the act itself — the doing that happens in the saying. See: Locution; Perlocution; Illocutionary Colonization; Illocutionary Sovereignty. (Austin, 1962; Phillips, 2026)
Illocutionary Colonization (il-lok-yoo-SHUN-air-ee kol-uh-nih-ZAY-shun /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i ˌkɒl.ə.nɪˈzeɪ.ʃən/)
Definition
The act of altering a speaker's intended meaning, replacing it with one's own, and acting on that altered meaning as though it were the original. The colonizer does not merely misunderstand — they substitute their interpretive framework for the speaker's, then hold the speaker accountable for the substituted meaning.
Theoretical Lineage
Extends J.L. Austin's speech act theory (illocutionary force as the intent behind an utterance) and Judith Butler's work on performative harm. Draws on epistemic injustice frameworks (Miranda Fricker) and decolonial theory. Phillips's contribution is the precise mechanism: not misunderstanding, not offense, but the deliberate or habituated replacement of meaning at the point of utterance.
Context of Coinage
Coined through autoethnographic documentation of a pattern Nikki Phillips first identified in family systems, then encountered systematically in academic institutional settings, and finally recognized as a structural mechanism of patriarchal and colonial power at scale. The term crystallized through AI-mediated phenomenological capture beginning in 2024.
Distinction from Adjacent Terms
Distinct from gaslighting (which operates on memory and reality perception) and microaggression (which operates on social encoding). Illocutionary colonization operates specifically at the level of meaning: it targets the illocutionary act itself, not the speaker's credibility or social standing.
Illocutionary Erasure (il-lok-yoo-SHUN-air-ee ih-RAY-zhur /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i ɪˈreɪ.ʒər/)
Definition
The complete disappearance of the speaker's intended meaning from the exchange — not replaced but rendered absent. Where illocutionary colonization substitutes, illocutionary erasure deletes.
Theoretical Lineage
Extension of illocutionary colonization framework. Related to epistemic silencing (Fricker) and the phenomenology of not being heard as distinct from being misheard.
Context of Coinage
Identified through close transcript analysis of institutional interactions where Phillips's utterances produced no apparent uptake — the interlocutor proceeded as though nothing had been said. Emerged as a distinct category requiring its own term.
Distinction from Adjacent Terms
Distinct from illocutionary colonization in that no replacement meaning is installed. The speaker is not mis-interpreted; they are functionally voided from the exchange.
Illocutionary Manipulation (il-oh-KYOO-shun-air-ee muh-NIP-yoo-LAY-shun /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i məˈnɪp.jʊˈleɪ.ʃən)
Definition
The active mechanism by which illocutionary colonization is accomplished — the turning of a speaker’s intended illocutionary force into a different force through deliberate or habituated reframing. Where illocutionary colonization names the outcome, illocutionary manipulation names the process. The speaker’s act arrives with one force; the recipient, institution, or interlocutor redirects it into a different act entirely. A demand for accountability becomes an observation about time management. A complaint about harm becomes evidence of emotional dysregulation. The manipulation is the turning itself.
Theoretical Lineage
Extension of illocutionary colonization framework (Phillips, 2026). Draws on Austin’s illocutionary force and Butler’s analysis of how speech acts are rerouted by institutional power. Phillips’s contribution is the isolation of the mechanism as analytically distinct from the outcome — manipulation is the verb, and colonization is the result.
Context of Coinage
Named in correspondence with Dr. Webb at CIIS, May 2025, under conditions of active institutional discrimination. The term emerged from lived documentation of a pattern in which Phillips’s speech acts were systematically redirected by the institution — the illocutionary force of her communications replaced in transit before they could produce their intended uptake. Named alongside illocutionary suppression as the two primary instruments of the discrimination she experienced.
Distinction from Adjacent Terms
Distinct from illocutionary colonization, which names the outcome — the installed replacement meaning. Illocutionary manipulation names the active process of replacement. Distinct from illocutionary suppression, which prevents the illocutionary act from occurring at all; manipulation allows the act to occur but redirects its force. Distinct from gaslighting, which operates on memory and reality perception rather than on the illocutionary force of specific speech acts. See: Illocutionary Colonization; Illocutionary Suppression; Locutionary Colonization. (Phillips, 2026)
Illocutionary Sovereignty (il-lok-yoo-SHUN-air-ee SOV-rin-tee /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i ˈsɒv.rɪn.ti/)
Definition
The right and capacity of a speaker to retain ownership of their intended meaning — to have their illocutionary act received as issued, not substituted. The condition in which meaning travels from speaker to recipient without colonization.
Theoretical Lineage
Inverse of illocutionary colonization. Draws on sovereignty frameworks in political philosophy and indigenous studies to examine the speech act. Connects to epistemic justice and communicative autonomy.
Context of Coinage
Developed as the affirmative counterpart to illocutionary colonization. Phillips identified that naming the violation was insufficient without naming the right being violated. Illocutionary sovereignty is both the theoretical object of protection and the condition the Rebellion of Light project seeks to install.
Distinction from Adjacent Terms
Distinct from free speech (a legal/political concept about permitted utterance) and communicative competence (a linguistic concept about ability). Illocutionary sovereignty is about the phenomenological and ethical integrity of meaning in transit.
Illocutionary Suppression (il-oh-KYOO-shun-air-ee suh-PRESH-un /ɪˌlɒk.jʊˈʃʌn.ər.i səˈprɛʃ.ən)
Definition
The prevention of an illocutionary act from occurring at all. Where illocutionary colonization replaces meaning and illocutionary manipulation redirects force, illocutionary suppression extinguishes the speech act before it can land. The speaker’s meaning is not altered or rerouted — it is stopped. The illocutionary force never reaches a recipient capable of receiving it as issued. Suppression operates through prohibition, silencing, structural exclusion, or the institutional removal of the conditions under which the speech act could be recognized as valid.
Theoretical Lineage
Extension of illocutionary colonization framework (Phillips, 2026). Relates to epistemic silencing (Fricker) and Audre Lorde’s analysis of enforced silence as a tool of oppression. Phillips distinguishes suppression from erasure: erasure is the disappearance of meaning from an exchange that has already occurred; suppression is the prevention of the exchange itself.
Context of Coinage
Named in correspondence with Dr. Webb at CIIS, May 2025, under conditions of documented institutional discrimination. Phillips was explicitly instructed not to participate in class, not to disagree, not to engage with her cohort or department, and to keep herself off camera — a comprehensive institutional architecture designed to prevent her illocutionary acts from occurring within the institution’s recognized space of exchange. Named alongside illocutionary manipulation as the two primary instruments of the discrimination she experienced and documented.
Distinction from Adjacent Terms
Distinct from illocutionary erasure, which names the disappearance of meaning from an exchange after it has been attempted; suppression prevents the attempt from being recognized as valid. Distinct from illocutionary manipulation, which allows the speech act to occur but redirects its force. Distinct from censorship in the legal sense, which concerns permitted utterance; illocutionary suppression names the structural conditions that prevent meaning from being received rather than merely the prohibition of speaking. See: Illocutionary Colonization; Illocutionary Erasure; Illocutionary Manipulation. (Phillips, 2026)