II. Reply to Skjei∗

Inquiry 28 (1-4):105-113 (1985)
Erling Skjei's criticisms (Inquiry 28, this issue) of my account of communicative action in The Theory of Communicative Action are based on a misunderstanding of the role of the analysis of speech acts in that work. I begin by restating the terms of my analysis, and after dealing with Skjei's objections to my claims for the explanatory power of illocutionary acts, draw attention to a problem with imperatives that I haven't yet done justice to
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00201748508602062
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,914
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
John Searle (1983). Intentionality. Oxford University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
J. Masschelein (1991). The Relevance of Habermas' Communicative Turn. Studies in Philosophy and Education 11 (2):95-111.
Joseph Heath (1995). Threats, Promises and Communicative Action. European Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):225-241.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

14 ( #180,314 of 1,725,575 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #349,436 of 1,725,575 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.