The search for meaning in the verification theory undoubtedly commits the descriptive fallacy. As the idea goes, a sentence's meaning is given by how the utterance can be verified. The entire concept of verification hinges on notions of validity. Declaring that the process of finding the truth of a sentence is that sentences definition is inextricably linking the two, thus committing the descriptive fallacy.
Austin's discussion of 'performative utterances' show that language is not merely describing objects and actions. Austin's notion of utterances as "speech-acts" avoids the descriptive fallacy because their purpose is to assert, request, command, etc. Actions do not carry with them a truth value because they are doing not describing. This notion of the force of an utterance asks us to examine the intentions behind utterances of all kinds, to identify the other mechanisms of meaning (e.g. sociological factors).
It seems that Austin's idea of speech acts is well grounded, but what is it that seemingly clear-cut descriptions are doing? Is their action just to fix the reference?
No comments:
Post a Comment