I have to hand it to Luntley; this is well argued. The claim that Wittgenstein did not view the social nature of language as "constitutive" (his words) is highly implausible, but it is very instructive to see where Luntley went wrong in his interpretation. For one thing, the 'social aspect' of language is by no means simple, and the cavalier attitude of many imputing this to W. is implausible. So, while I don't think the thesis is correct, the text deserves a look, particularly for those who find it a matter of course that the social determines meaning in Wittgenstein's writing.
