Inquiry 28 (1-4):43 – 53 (1985)
|Abstract||Austin's ?doctrine of the infelicities?, whereby performative utterances are vulnerable to the risk of failure, has been criticized for treating such a possibility as contingent rather than as necessary (and hence revelatory of the essential nature of speech acts). This paper seeks to trace out what is at stake for one who maintains Austin's position. It examines Austin's curious hypothetical history of the development of speech acts, which is found to resemble forms of social?contract theory, and the problem with this hypothetical history is shown to be that it presupposes as original the very properties that it sets out to explain. The argument is then made that Austin's technicalization of the conditions and context of speech acts displaces our attention from the deeper issue that both speech?act and contract theory are versions of a concern with making social action transparent, and both raise the perennial (and insoluble) problem of trust in human affairs|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Bryan Magee (1999). A Note on J. L. Austin and the Drama. Philosophy 74 (1):119-121.
Justin Leiber, On What Sort of Speech Act Wittgenstein's Investigations is and Why It Matters (the Philosophical Forum , XXVIII, No. 3, 1997.
Kory Schaff (2000). Hate Speech and the Problems of Agency. Social Philosophy Today 16:185-201.
Karl Schuhmann & Barry Smith (1990). Elements of Speech Act Theory in the Work of Thomas Reid. History of Philosophy Quarterly 7 (1):47 - 66.
Marina Sbisà (2006). Speech Acts Without Propositions? Grazer Philosophische Studien 72 (1):155-178.
Stefanov Gheorghe (2010). Negative Acts. Analele Universitatii Bucuresti - Filosofie (LIX):3-9.
Added to index2009-03-05
Total downloads4 ( #178,800 of 549,224 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,224 )
How can I increase my downloads?