Austin's method was described as a pedantic description of how English is used, "the philosophical interest of which & is by no means always clear" and which, moreover, is so trivial that "a fine scholar of English could have made a better job of it" (Harrod 1963). His focus on ordinary language was interpreted as a substantial lack of interest in the phenomena studied, as a deliberate refusal to see the source of philosophical problems, and as mocking philosophical enquiry.¹ Alternatively his method was depicted as aiming at solving or dissolving philosophical problems only by means of looking at how words are ordinarily used. Austin was hence seen as assuming that the mere observation of ordinary language would reveal metaphysical and factual truths about our object of enquiry and that any use of language which departs from the ordinary use is false.²