European Journal of Philosophy 22 (4):617-632 (2014)

Abstract
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.
Keywords J.L. Austin  contextualism  literal meaning  speech acts
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2012, 2014
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0378.2011.00510.x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

Themes From Kaplan.Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.) - 1989 - Oxford University Press.
Demonstratives: An Essay on the Semantics, Logic, Metaphysics and Epistemology of Demonstratives and Other Indexicals.David Kaplan - 1989 - In Joseph Almog, John Perry & Howard Wettstein (eds.), Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press. pp. 481-563.
Literal Meaning.François Recanati - 2002 - Cambridge University Press.
Literal Meaning.Kent Bach - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 75 (2):487-492.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

How to Silence Content with Porn, Context and Loaded Questions.Alex Davies - 2016 - European Journal of Philosophy 24 (2):498-522.
Austin on Literal Meaning.Odai Al Zoubi - 2016 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 30 (3):41-64.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Happy Truth: J. L. Austin's How to Do Things with Words.Alice Crary - 2002 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 45 (1):59 – 80.
Is Literal Meaning Conventional?Andrei Marmor - 2008 - Topoi 27 (1-2):101-113.
Austin and the Ethics of Discourse.Alice Crary - 2006 - In Alice Crary & Sanford Shieh (eds.), Reading Cavell. Routledge. pp. 42--67.
On the Distinction Between Literal and Non-Literal Language.David Ian Sturdee - 1999 - Dissertation, University of Toronto (Canada)
Searle y el significado literal.Juan José Acero - 2006 - Revista de Filosofía (Madrid) 31 (2):9-30.
Malapropisms and Davidson's Theories of Literal Meaning.John Michael McGuire - 2007 - The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:93-97.
Revisiting the Contribution of Literal Meaning to Legal Meaning.Brian Flanagan - 2010 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 30 (2):255-271.
Reading Austin Rhetorically.Andrew Munro - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (1):22-43.
A Plea for Radical Contextualism.Minyao Huang - 2017 - Synthese 194 (3):963-988.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-11-01

Total views
709 ( #6,361 of 2,343,896 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
55 ( #11,027 of 2,343,896 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes