Ordinary language philosophy emerged in the mid-20th century as a reaction to formal logical analysis. It focused on examining how people use language in everyday contexts, aiming to dissolve philosophical puzzles by clarifying the ordinary usage of problematic terms.

This approach emphasized the context-dependent nature of meaning and the importance of pragmatic considerations. It challenged the assumption that philosophical problems require technical language, instead seeking to uncover hidden assumptions and conceptual confusions in everyday language use.

Ordinary Language Philosophy

Origins and Key Figures

• Ordinary language philosophy emerged mid-20th century as a reaction to formal logical analysis
• Emphasized examining language use in everyday contexts
• J.L. Austin and Gilbert Ryle developed this philosophical approach
• Focused on nuances and complexities of natural language use
• Aimed to dissolve philosophical puzzles by clarifying ordinary usage of problematic terms
• Highlighted context-dependent nature of meaning
• Stressed importance of pragmatic considerations in understanding language (speech situations, social conventions)

Methodological Approach

• Involved careful attention to subtle distinctions in common linguistic expressions
• Argued many traditional philosophical problems stem from misunderstandings of everyday language
• Challenged assumption that philosophical problems require technical language
• Emphasized linguistic therapy to clarify concepts and dissolve confusions
• Expressed skepticism about constructing comprehensive philosophical theories
• Sought to uncover hidden assumptions and conceptual confusions in language use
• Examined implications of everyday phrases (time flies, the mind's eye)

Everyday Language and Philosophical Problems

Meaning Through Use

• Argued meaning of words and phrases understood through everyday contexts
• Rejected abstract definitions or formal logical analysis for determining meaning
• Focused on how people actually use language in daily life (greetings, requests, promises)
• Emphasized importance of context in shaping meaning (same phrase different meanings in various situations)
• Explored how language use reveals underlying conceptual frameworks
• Examined idiomatic expressions and their philosophical implications (it's raining cats and dogs, time is money)

Linguistic Confusion and Philosophical Issues

• Suggested many philosophical problems result from linguistic confusion
• Aimed to dissolve rather than solve philosophical puzzles
• Challenged traditional metaphysical and epistemological debates as misguided
• Argued some philosophical problems disappear when language is properly understood
• Explored how ordinary language use can lead to conceptual muddles (mind-body problem, free will debate)
• Analyzed everyday concepts to reveal their complex logical structure (knowledge, belief, intention)

Analysis of Speech Acts and Discourse

Speech Act Theory

• J.L. Austin's theory distinguished between locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts
• Locutionary act refers to the literal meaning of an utterance
• Illocutionary act describes the intended force or function of the utterance
• Perlocutionary act refers to the actual effect of the utterance on the listener
• Introduced concept of performative utterances (I now pronounce you husband and wife, I bet you $5)
• Challenged traditional view of language as purely descriptive
• Explored how certain statements constitute actions in themselves (naming a ship, making a promise)

Logic of Ordinary Discourse

• Revealed complex rules and conventions governing everyday communication
• Developed techniques for mapping conceptual relationships in language use
• Emphasized role of context, intention, and social conventions in determining meaning
• Explored implicit assumptions in everyday conversation (conversational implicature)
• Analyzed how people navigate ambiguity and vagueness in ordinary language
• Examined the role of metaphor and figurative language in shaping understanding (life is a journey, argument is war)

Criticisms and Limitations of Ordinary Language Philosophy

Methodological Concerns

• Critics argued approach relies too heavily on linguistic intuitions
• Questioned lack of rigorous philosophical arguments or theories
• Debated whether ordinary language is adequate for addressing all philosophical problems
• Criticized potential reification of current linguistic practices
• Questioned reliability of intuitions about language use across cultures and time periods
• Debated whether focus on linguistic analysis comes at expense of substantive metaphysical inquiries

Legacy and Influence

• Shaped subsequent developments in philosophy of language and pragmatics
• Influenced certain branches of cognitive science (embodied cognition, linguistic relativity)
• Ongoing debate about relationship between ordinary language philosophy and formal logical analysis
• Contemporary approaches continue to emphasize importance of linguistic and conceptual analysis
• Influenced development of experimental philosophy and conceptual analysis
• Contributed to interdisciplinary research on language, thought, and social interaction