ABSTRACT
The Austin-Strawson controversy, on the other hand, centred on issues crucial to the traditional theory and raised serious doubts about the role played by the concept of ‘fact’ in Austin’s version of the theory and about the explanatory function of the semantic conventions linking language to the world. Indeed, to object in principle to such attempts would be to reject as illegitimate many problems in the theory of knowledge and the philosophy of language. In particular semantics would become an illusory enterprise. Thus underlying Strawson’s particular (and very valuable) criticisms of a promising version of the correspondence theory is the conviction that all such theories are basically misconceived. The generalizing function of language, which is essential to its ability to carry and convey information, requires it to neglect the concrete and particular character of the world of our experience along with its multitudinous variety.
