Abusing use

Abstract

This paper discusses objections against the idea that the meaning of a word is its use. Sct. 1 accepts Rundle’s point that ‘meaning’ and ‘use’ are used differently, but insists that this is compatible with holding that use determines meaning, an therefore holds the key to conceptual analysis.
Scts. 2-4 rebut three lines of argument which claim that linguistic philosophy goes astray by reading into the meaning of words non-semantic features of its use: Searle’s general speech act fallacy charge, Hacker’s use of the Frege-point against Wittgenstein’s account of avowals, and Grice’s attack on Wittgenstein‘s discussion of ‘trying’. Sct. 5 argues that Grice’s doctrine of conversational implicature fails to show that the features he disregards are pragmatic rather than semantic. Sct. 6 ends with some suggestions about how use can be related to meaning without
being abused.