J is right that there is a lot of Freud in Grice.
We have to consider 'language games'. And 'survival'. As Grice notes, to reach the level of 'conversation' we are talking of 'talking pirots' (or parrots). Surely more primitive pirots don't need to "TALK".
So we have to consider the functions of language. For Grice there are two: to express a belief ("The cat is on the mat!") or to express a desire ("clean the mess he did on it!").
There have been various classifications of functions of speeech. Most biological functions do NOT require speech. For Grice, the function is 'exchange of information'. Surely there is a lot of 'phatic' communication going on in places -- like pubs, etc., which is not to be accountable, logically, as 'exchange of information'.
There is a theory of language evolution that compares language to gesture and the 'need' to socialise.
-----
The issue then arises: why implicature. I mean, if communication is exchange of information, why implicate? What bothers me particularly is that implicatures are by definition 'cancellable'.
"There's a garage round the corner -- I said that, but I never meant to suggest that it would be open and with petrol to sell."
----
It seems that when come to grits, language can do WITHOUT implicature. Implicature is a 'touch of class'. Surely Winston Churchill or Chamberlain could not have declared the war on Germany 'by implicature'. This is "Things do do with words" by Austin with a vengeance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
there is a lot of Freud in Grice
ReplyDeleteperhaps but I was sort of saying Grice hints at psychological issues--even pathopsychological. Yet as with most analytical-phils (even the language-istic sorts) Grice doesn't really make psychological inferences, does he? As with Logic and Convo--pertty much just description, some maxims, etc. Not "this implicature suggests sadistic impulses," or something.
Also-- I don't really approve of Freud--yet...some sort of psychology seems warranted (and compared to Lacan, Freud seems nearly scientific at times), especially in regard to ...(tho' Quine always sided with Skinner, language issues. And I doubt we want to bring up Skinner and ping-pong playing pigeonssupposedly...)
I love Skinner. Just because Chomster rejected his views makes Skinner a favourite of mine.
ReplyDeleteYes, we have to consider Freud, more seriously.
Im not sure when you're jesting, or not. Skinner certainly attempted to kill Mind. I don't see how any metaphysician could respect him. He may not have been Evil per se ( I read he protested 'Nam at one point), but behaviorism was reductionism of the worst sort. For that matter, why not train people to be robotic soldiers instead of normal humans? If behaviorism held you could condition them to be about anything (and add genetic engineering..and modify them to serve as Bot for the military or something). I am not a great admirer of Chomsky but he understood what was at stake (tho he may have overstated his case). Neither a CHomster nor a Skinster be.
ReplyDeleteGood. I'm never jestful! :).
ReplyDeleteNo, between a behaviourist and a mentalist I'm a behaviourist anyday.
Seriously, and for the sake of the Grice Club, I would take RYLE more seriously than Skinner, though. Grice, in "Conception of Value" (Appendix) has Ryle as 'analytic behaviourist', which is, really, 'behaviouristic, period'.
I do have photocopies, somewhere, or had, of Skinner, Verbal Behaviour. He is trying the best tradition alla Peirce, Morris, Carnap, pragmatics, Bar-Hillel. So it's not so outrageous. The points about morality, etc., you raise, are good, but -- first things first.
Behaviourism really started with Watson. So we may consider Ryle and Grice and see how they contrast.
I'll do this in a different blog post.