- John E. Atwell (1966). Austin on Incorrigibility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 27 (December):261-266.
- J. L. Austin (1966). Three Ways of Spilling Ink. Philosophical Review 75 (4):427-440.
- J. L. Austin (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford University Press.
- A. J. Ayer (1967). Has Austin Refuted the Sense-Datum Theory? Synthese 17 (June):117-140.
- M. R. Ayers (1966). Austin on `Could' and `Could Have'. Philosophical Quarterly 16 (63):113-120.
- Brian Bix, John Austin. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- William S. Boardman, Austin and the Inferential Account of Perception.
- Stanley Cavell (1965). Austin at Criticism. Philosophical Review 74 (2):204-219.
- J. C. D'Alessio (1972). Austin on Nowell-Smith's Conditional Analyses of `Could Have' and `Can'. Mind 81 (322):260-264.
- John A. Dinneen (1972). What Austin Does with Words. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 32 (4):514-523.
- Gerald Doppelt (1979). The Austin-Malcolm Argument for the Incorrigibility of Perceptual Reports. Dialectica 33:59-75.
- Austin Duncan-Jones, C. D. Broad, William Kneale, Martha Kneale, L. J. Russell, D. J. Allan, S. Körner, Percy Black, J. O. Urmson, Stephen Toulmin, J. J. C. Smart, Antony Flew, R. C. Cross, George E. Hughes, John Holloway, D. Daiches Raphael, J. P. Corbett, E. A. Gellner, G. P. Henderson, W. von Leyden, P. L. Heath, Margaret Macdonald, B. Mayo, P. H. Nowell-Smith, J. N. Findlay & A. M. MacIver (1950). New Books. Mind 59 (235):389-431.
- Roderick Firth (1964). Austin and the Argument From Illusion. Philosophical Review 73 (July):372-382.
- Eugen Fischer (2005). Austin on Sense-Data: Ordinary Language Analysis as 'Therapy'. Grazer Philosophische Studien 70 (1):67-99.
- Richard T. Garner (1968). Austin on Entailment. Philosophical Quarterly 18 (72):216-224.
- Richard T. Garner (1968). Utterances and Acts in the Philosophy of J. L. Austin. Noûs 2 (3):209-227.
- D. Gerber (1969). A Note on Woody on Dewey on Austin. Ethics 79 (4):303-308.
- Simon Glendinning (2000). Inheriting 'Philosophy': The Case of Austin and Derrida Revisited. Ratio 13 (4):307–331.
- Keith Graham (1981). A Note on Reading Austin. Synthese 46 (1).
- Timothy S. Hall, Jeffrey E. Thomas, Danaya C. Wright, James Charles Smith, Aaron Schwabach, Joel Fishman, Daniel Austin Green, Andrew P. Morriss & Benjamin Barton, Harry Potter and the Law.
- Stuart Hampshire (1965). J. L. Austin and Philosophy. Journal of Philosophy 62 (19):511-513.
- W. F. R. Hardie (1963). Austin on Perception. Philosophy 38 (July):253-263.
- Austin Harrington (2007). Habermas's Theological Turn? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 37 (1):45–61.
- Austin harrington (2003). Divided, Not-United. Angelaki 8 (1):109 – 118.
- Austin Harrington (2000). Objectivism in Hermeneutics? Gadamer, Habermas, Dilthey. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 30 (4).
- Austin Harrington (1999). Some Problems with Gadamer's and Habermas' Dialogical Model of Sociological Understanding. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 29 (2):371–384.
- Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey (2008). Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6).
- Matthew H. Kramer (2008). Wilfrid E. Rumble, Doing Austin Justice: The Reception of John Austin's Philosophy of Law in Nineteenth-Century England (London and New York: Continuum, 2005), Pp. XI + 270. Utilitas 20 (2):252-254.
- Charles Landesman (1980). J. L. Austin: A Critique of Ordinary Language Philosophy. Journal of the History of Philosophy 18 (4).
- Bryan Magee (1999). A Note on J. L. Austin and the Drama. Philosophy 74 (1):119-121.
- Norman Malcolm (1965). Understanding Austin. Journal of Philosophy 62 (19):508-509.
- T. R. Martland (1970). Austin, Art, and Anxiety. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 29 (2):169-174.
- Bill Mathews (1964). Austin on Implication and Entailment: A Reply to Mr. Wheatley. Philosophical Studies 15 (6).
- W. L. Morison (1982). John Austin. Stanford University Press.
- W. V. Quine (1965). J. L. Austin: Comment. Journal of Philosophy 62 (19):509-510.
- Wilfrid E. Rumble (2004). Doing Austin Justice: The Reception of John Austin's Philosophy of Law in Nineteenth-Century England. Continuum.
- Robert Schwartz (2004). To Austin or Not to Austin, That's the Disjunction. Philosophical Studies 120 (1-3):255-263.
- John R. Searle (1968). Austin on Locutionary and Illocutionary Acts. Philosophical Review 77 (4):405-424.
- H. V. Stainsby (1973). Austin on Ryle on Seeing and "Seeing". Mind 82 (328):608.
- Timothy Stroup (1968). Austin on `Ifs'. Mind 77 (305):104-108.
- J. O. Urmson (1965). J. L. Austin. Journal of Philosophy 62 (19):499-508.
- J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (1961). J. L. Austin. Mind 70 (278):256-257.
- Jon Wheatley (1964). Austin on Implication and Entailment. Philosophical Studies 15 (3).
- Susan Minot Woody (1968). The Theory of Sovereignty: Dewey Versus Austin. Ethics 78 (4):313-318.
|
Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
Monitor this page
Be alerted of all new items appearing on this page. Choose how you want to monitor it:
Email
|
RSS feed
|
|