J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning

European Journal of Philosophy 22 (4):617-632 (2012)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Alice Crary has recently developed a radical reading of J. L. Austin's philosophy of language. The central contention of Crary's reading is that Austin gives convincing reasons to reject the idea that sentences have context-invariant literal meaning. While I am in sympathy with Crary about the continuing importance of Austin's work, and I think Crary's reading is deep and interesting, I do not think literal sentence meaning is one of Austin's targets, and the arguments that Crary attributes to Austin or finds Austinian in spirit do not provide convincing reasons to reject literal sentence meaning. In this paper, I challenge Crary's reading of Austin and defend the idea of literal sentence meaning.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HANJLA-16
Revision history
First archival date: 2013-04-24
Latest version: 2 (2019-09-09)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Themes From Kaplan.Almog, Joseph; Perry, John & Wettstein, Howard (eds.)
Literal Meaning.Recanati, Fran├žois
Literal Meaning.Recanati, Fran├žois

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2011-11-01

Total views
595 ( #4,880 of 43,723 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
117 ( #4,028 of 43,723 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.