Benjamin Franklin, The Humorist

* * * * * By J. L. Speranza, for the Grice Club.



* * * * * I'VE BEEN reading Solum's defense of some Gricean distinctions ("Gricean hues", he calls them), in the language of the American constitution, as ignored by otherwise fine Gricean author Smith in his book, "Law's Quandary".

He starts by distinguishing cook-meaning from recipe-meaning. A woman writes a recipe for apple-pie that has as one of its ingredients, "whisky". As it happens, she meant, rhum. When told about her mistake, she said, "Actually, it tastes better with whisky. So do not touch the recipe."".

From there on, it goes straight to the Constitution. He grants the writers of the constitution were hardly your average humorist, or ironist. Drafters tend to be _literalists_. They were asking for people to _ratify_ what they were saying, or 'meaning'. Since 'meaning' is a matter of intentions, and the full proceedings of the framers's scenarios are NOW better known than they were back in the day (to the ratifiers) he, or my reading of his concludes, that they (the ratifiers) did not know what they were ratifying (as we do).

He proposes an example:

The Intellectual Property Clause.

This clause states or "means" that the Congress must aim at the progress of science when copyright terms are modified.

Surely the Framers meant that. The question is whether the Framers meant that YOU, in 2010 would recognise their intentions.

As Solum notes, this is not your average e-texting. If Austin is right, as she seems not, the illoucutionary uptake would be one that would spans 'a few centuries.' In Gricean parlance, at least the illocutionary uptake never takes place, because, "there are no such things as illocutionary forces."

At this point Solum vindicates yet again the name of Grice. He owes his reading of Grice, he confides, to Rogers Albritton, brilliant, brilliant man. He suggested "I read the work of Grice" in the late 1970s.

So, if the framers were "implicating" something, it's us as got implicated. So go figure!