A Divide‐and‐Conquer Strategy
There are two obvious kinds of manoeuvres for rejecting the existence of full-fledged non-sentential speech acts, thereby avoiding the implications canvassed briefly in Chapter 1. The first is to deny that there are full-fledged speech acts performed at all. The second obvious kind of manoeuvre is to deny that the examples are truly non-sentential, alleging instead that every apparently sub-sentential speech act is actually an utterance of some kind of sentence. Jason Stanley points out that one must consider a ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy, explaining away some cases as underlyingly sentential and other cases as not full-fledged speech acts. This chapter aims to rebut this ‘divide-and-conquer’ strategy.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.