Abstract

I don't have any serious quarrels with John Searle's approach to speech act theory.' There's a lot of little things that I do not really understand. (Example: what is a direction of fit?) There are a few mmor points which I think are wrong. (Example: the doctrine about "underlying rules" which are "manifested or realized" by conventions, and, to be frank, the whole thing about so called constitutive rules. Why should a statement like "Greeting in a normal context cotmts as a corteous recognition of the addressee by the speaker" be regarded as conveying a rule? How could one violate, or follow, the alleged role? Maybe greeting is something which presupposes the existence of certain rules, or maybe statements of the type "x counts as y in context c" are true only in virtue of the fact that certain policies are accepted in the contexts in question, but the statement above, concerning the essence of..