Grice on the optative-cohortative distinction

Grice makes various distinctions when it comes to the modes (moods). The volitive or imperative was his favourite here.

He notes, as cited by Chapman,

"Op1a" Volitive -- A cases intentional, B cases imperative" cfr. boulomaic. (Chapman, p. 132 -- actually citing from Grice 2001)

---

In WoW:111 which he had written donkey ears before he had considered:


1. You shall not cross the barrier.

vs.

2. Do not cross the barrier.


and cfr.

3. Thou shalt cross the barrier

4. Thou wilt cross the barrier

5. (Thou) cross the barrier.

Grice says that (5) - the imperative - is "protreptic" while (3) - the
"shall" form - is merely "exhibitive" of the utterer's intention.

A protreptic utterance he defines as one "by which the utterer intends, via
imparting the belief that he has a certain propositional attitude, to INDUCE
a corresponding attitude in the addressee".

People, not Grice of course, can get confused by that.

One may think of (3) as a subtler way of convincing someone than the crass imperative, which to me, only relies on authority and force.

Now, the first and second persons are admittedly tricky in that one can "induce" oneself or one's recipient or addressee, but when it comes to a third person who may be beyond our "powers", I guess the illustrations should be easier.

For one, we don't have Grice's imperative ("protreptic") in that you cannot
issue an order to a third party (grammatically speaking) so we are left with

FUTURE

6. He shall kill
7. He will kill
8. He kills.

I suppose in OE the first, most common, way of expressing the future would be
"he kills (tomorrow)", i.e. present with future meaning. But of course, literally what you are saying is that he "will" - which Grice would analyse as Prichard, i.e. as short for 'will-that' (He describes himself as a neo-Prichardian in Grice 1971, Intention and Uncertainty, British Academy Lecture -- a jewel of a piece, which should be compiled SOON).

Uunlike "shall", will-that has a predictive force, i.e. it works as a mere
prediction of what it is the case that he does in the future. Whereas
"shall" brings another element.

Plus, literally the "will" form relates to "volition", as in German
"will" vs. G. "soll". So the idea is ...

what's your implicature?

I shall but I won't.
I won't but I shall.

Why are these odd?

Optative vs. cohortative have to do rather with

"Shall WE dance?"

versus the ruder,

"Shall you dance with me?"

i.e.

"Will you dance with me?"

The fact that 'shall' and 'will' vary as to first and second and third person in singular and plural is no problem for Kramer, though, who gets the logical devices alright!

Etc.