Speech Acts and Implicatures

Abstract

Austin insisted that any serious philosophical discussion must take account of the distinctions, connections and classifications apparent in the ways in which language was ordinarily used. This conviction developed, at least in part, from his dissatisfaction with the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle. He found there too much eagerness to adopt technical philosophical terminology, too much readiness to dismiss ordinary language as vague, messy or simply meaningless, and too dogmatic an assumption that the chief business of language was to make statements that might be evaluated for truth: a philosopher’s conception of truth at that. In response to these perceived defects in logical positivism, Austin not only urged the philosophical utility of ordinary language, he elevated its analysis to the status of a philosophical methodology. A meticulous examination of what native speakers know about a relevant range of vocabulary, ideally conducted collaboratively, was an essential starting point to any philosophical inquiry.