Intentionality and meaning: A reaction to Leilich’s “intentionality, speech acts and communicative action”

Walter De Mulder
Quick links
A browser-friendly version of this article is not yet available. View PDF
Alston, W
(1991) Searle on illocutionary acts. In E. Lepore and R. Van Gulick (eds.), John Searle and his critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 57-80.Google Scholar
Apel, K.O
(1991) Is intentionality more basic than linguistic meaning? In E. Lepore and R. Van Gulick (eds.), John Searle and his critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 31-55.Google Scholar
Bach, K. and R. Harnish
(1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1992) How performatives really work: a reply to Searle. Linguistics and philosophy 15: 93-110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bange, P
(1992) Analyse conversationnelle et théorie de l’action. Paris: Hatier/Didier.Google Scholar
Bouveresse, J
(1971) La parole malheureuse. De l’alchimie linguistique à la grammaire philosophique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Grice, P
(1957) Meaning. Philosophical review 66: 377-388. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1968) Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning and word-meaning. Foundations of language 4: 1-18.Google Scholar
Gripp, H
(1984) Jürgen Habermas. Und es gibt sie doch - Zur kommunikationstheoretischen Begründung von Vernunft bei Jürgen Habermas. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Habermas, J
(1976) Was heisst Universalpragmatik? In K.O. Apel (ed.), Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 174-272.Google Scholar
(1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Fourth, revised edition, 1988.Google Scholar
(1982) A reply to my critics. Universal pragmatics. In J. Thompson and D. Held (eds.), Habermas. Critical debates. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 269-274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Comments on John Searle: “Meaning, communication and representation”. In E. Lepore and R. Van Gulick (eds.), John Searle and his critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 17-29.Google Scholar
Leilich, J
(1993) Intentionality, speech acts and communicative action. Manuscript.  BoP
Lepore, E. and Van Gulick, R
(1991) John Searle and his critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Récanati, F
(1981) Les énoncés performatifs. Contribution à la pragmatique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Searle, J
(1969) Speech Acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Second reprint, 1970. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1979) Literal meaning. In J. Searle (ed.), Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Third reprint, 1985. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1983) Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Third reprint, 1985. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1986) Meaning, communication and representation. In R. Grandy and R. Warner (eds.), Philosophical grounds of rationality. Intentions, categories, ends. Oxford: Clarendon, 209-226.Google Scholar
(1989a) Individual intentionality and social phenomena in the theory of speech acts. In Deledalle, J. (ed.), Semiotics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3-17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989b) How performatives work. Linguistics and philosophy 12: 535-558. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990) Collective Intentions and actions. In P. Cohhen, J. Morgan and M. Pollack (eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 401-415.Google Scholar
(1991) Response: meaning, intentionality and speech acts. In E. Lepore and R. Van Gulick (eds.), John Searle and his critics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 81-102.Google Scholar
Thompson, J
(1982) Universal pragmatics. In J. Thompson and D. Held (eds.), Habermas. Critical debates. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 116-133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weyns, W
(1990) De sociologie van Jürgen Habermas. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar