Abstract

SummaryWittgenstein's uses of “language‐game” oscillate between references to simplified and imaginary models of rule‐governed observable interaction, and reference to ways in which words are actually used.Reasons are offered for rejecting Wittgenstein's claim for the autonomy of language‐games: use of “mini‐languages “presupposes use of a full language; and mastery of conceptually related language‐games.“Language‐games” are not games. They might be treated as “images” in the literary critic's sense of “pictures made out of words”