J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning

European Journal of Philosophy 22 (4):617-632 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
Reprint years
2012, 2014
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
First archival date: 2013-04-24
Latest version: 2 (2019-09-09)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
How to Do Things with Words.Austin, John Langshaw
Literal Meaning.Recanati, Fran├žois

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
684 ( #5,277 of 50,419 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
47 ( #12,455 of 50,419 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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