🚀 go-pugleaf

ard@cs.bham.ac.uk (Antoni Diller) writes:
> The book by Baker and Hacker, ``Language, Sense and Nonsense'' has some
> very powerful arguments showing that most speech act theories are worthless
> as accounts of how language works.  They trace the mistakes of speech act
> theory from Frege, through Austin and Seare and many linguists.  If they're
> correct, anybody working on speech act theory is wastinf their time!!

I haven't read the book, but I note from the library computer that it
was published in 1984.  I think this is significant because up until
the eighties, speech act research was dominated by the
`conventionalist' approach, begun by Austin and carried out by Searle.
Since then, a lot of work from the `anticonventionalist' point of view
has become prominent.  Perhaps Baker and Hacker fall into this
category.  Overall though, it is an oversimplification to talk about
speech act theory as if only one theory exists.  In my opinion,
excellent contributions have been by people with differing views on
the subject.

> PS:  I'm not convinced by their arguemnts, but are you?

Baker and Hacker's or Austin and Searle's?

</dev/cam
--
      Cameron Shelley        | "Proof, n.  Evidence having a shade more of
cpshelle@logos.waterloo.edu  |  plausibility than of unlikelyhood.  The
    Davis Centre Rm 2136     |  testimony of two credible witnesses as
 Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390  |	opposed to that of one."    Ambrose Bierce