Book Description. This is a volume of original essays on key aspects of John Searle's philosophy of language. Written by a distinguished team of contemporary philosophers, and prefaced by an illuminating essay by Searle, it aims to suggest innovative approaches to fundamental questions that Searle's work has addressed. Searle - The most general question in the philosophy of language is: How exactly does language relate to reality? When I make noises through my mouth. Philosophy of Language: The Central Topics Susana Nuccetelli Compiled by, John R. Searle. Publisher Language and languages - Philosophy · Semantics.
|Published:||16 November 2014|
|PDF File Size:||41.60 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||46.88 Mb|
For example, the statement "John bought two candy bars" is satisfied if and only if it is true, i.
John did buy two candy bars. By contrast, the command "John, buy two candy bars! Searle refers to the first as having the "word-to-world" direction the philosophy of language searle fit, since the words are supposed to change to accurately represent the world, and the second as having the "world-to-word" direction of fit, since the world is supposed to change to match the words.
There is also the double direction of fit, in which the relationship goes both ways, and the null or zero direction of fit, in which it goes neither the philosophy of language searle because the propositional content is presupposed, as in "I'm sorry I ate John's candy bars.
Limited Inc This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience.
Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy.
April Learn how and when to remove this template message In the early s, Searle had a brief exchange with Jacques Derrida regarding speech-act theory.
The philosophy of language searle exchange was characterized by a degree of mutual hostility between the philosophers, each of whom accused the other of having misunderstood his basic points.
Searle did not consider Derrida's approach to be legitimate philosophy or even intelligible writing and argued that he did not want to legitimize the deconstructionist point of view by dedicating any attention to it.
Consequently, some critics  have considered the exchange to be a series of elaborate misunderstandings rather than a debate, while others  have seen either Derrida or Searle gaining the upper hand. The level of hostility can be seen from Searle's statement that "It would be a mistake to regard Derrida's discussion of Austin as a confrontation between two prominent philosophical traditions", to which Derrida replied that that sentence was "the only the philosophy of language searle of the 'reply' to which I can subscribe".
John Searle - Wikipedia
Austin 's theory of the illocutionary act. While sympathetic to Austin's departure from a purely denotational account of language to one that includes "force", Derrida was sceptical of the framework of normativity employed by Austin.
He argued that Austin had missed the fact that any speech event is framed by a "structure of absence" the words that are left unsaid due to contextual constraints and by "iterability" the repeatability of linguistic elements outside the philosophy of language searle their context.
Derrida argued that the focus on intentionality in speech-act theory was misguided because intentionality is restricted to that which is already established as a possible the philosophy of language searle.
The philosophy of language - John R. Searle - Google книги
He also took issue with the way Austin had excluded the the philosophy of language searle of fiction, non-serious or "parasitic" speech, wondering whether this exclusion was because Austin had considered these speech genres governed by different structures of meaning, or simply due to a lack of interest.
In his brief reply to Derrida, "Reiterating the Differences: A Reply to Derrida", Searle argued that Derrida's critique was unwarranted because it assumed that Austin's theory attempted to give a full account of language and meaning when its aim was much narrower.
The philosophy of language searle considered the omission of parasitic discourse forms to be justified by the narrow scope of Austin's inquiry. Some critics  have suggested that Searle, by being so grounded in the analytical tradition, was unable to engage with Derrida's continental phenomenological tradition and was at fault for the unsuccessful nature of the exchange.
Derrida, in his response to Searle "a b c Searle did not respond.
- The Philosophy of Language - J. R. Searle - Oxford University Press
- The Philosophy of Language
Later inDerrida tried to review his position and the philosophy of language searle critiques of Austin and Searle, reiterating that he found the constant appeal to "normality" in the analytical tradition to be problematic.
One "infelicity," for instance, occurs when it cannot be known whether a given speech act is "sincere" or "merely citational" and therefore possibly ironic, etc.
Derrida the philosophy of language searle that every iteration is necessarily "citational", due to the graphematic nature of speech and writing, and that language could not work at all without the ever-present and ineradicable possibility of such alternate readings.