J. L. Austin and literal meaning

[thumbnail of Open Access (Online Open)]
Preview
Text (Open Access (Online Open)) - Published Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading.
| Preview

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Add to AnyAdd to TwitterAdd to FacebookAdd to LinkedinAdd to PinterestAdd to Email

Hansen, N. orcid id iconORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5074-1075 (2012) J. L. Austin and literal meaning. European Journal of Philosophy, 22 (4). pp. 617-632. ISSN 1468-0378 doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00510.x

Abstract/Summary

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.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type Article
URI https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/28673
Identification Number/DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00510.x
Refereed Yes
Divisions Arts, Humanities and Social Science > School of Humanities > Philosophy
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell
Download/View statistics View download statistics for this item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar