Jürgen Habermas
Heidelberg University
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
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 53,645
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

Intentionality.John Searle - 1983 - Oxford University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

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

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
23 ( #433,720 of 2,349,060 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #186,313 of 2,349,060 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes