The Grice Club

Welcome

The Grice Club

The club for all those whose members have no (other) club.

Is Grice the greatest philosopher that ever lived?

Search This Blog

Sunday, February 27, 2011

A fashion statement

So now members of the Grice club can judge by theirselves [sic]:

Welby (a Gricean)...

or Langer -- an anti-Gricean.

This is Dale, "Theory of meaning", the footnote I was referring. His genial phrase is:

"Langer represents a clear case of a philosopher who identified something like a notion of speaker-meaning only to let it go. Welby did not do this."

And for only that reason, every respected Griceian should hang a portrait of la Lady in his library (or something).

Dale notes:

"It is perhaps important to note that
various philosophers"

of both genders, etc.

"who I have mentioned in this history have at least vaguely broached the subject of meaning in the sense in which a speaker is said to mean something by an utterance."

He continues:

"What is important here is that though such philosophers addressed this notion, it seems not at all to have occurred to them that perhaps a theory of meaning could be based on this notion as it did to Welby."

He then addresses this philosopher, then, as perhaps Welby was not. (She was, as I say, a lady).

"Langer is a good example of such a philosopher. She speaks of "the ambiguous verb 'to mean'" and says of it that "sometimes it is proper to say 'it means,' and sometimes 'I mean.'"

----

Versus Grice's 'prim and proper' Aunt Matilda who finds it improper to say,

"He is a runt" meaning undersized person (WoW:VI).

Note that Langer is clever enough NOT to say 'improper'.

Dale goes on:

"She continues, "[o]bviously, a word - say, 'London' - does not 'mean' a city in just the same sense that a person employing the word 'means' the place" (Langer (1942), p. 55)."

True.

It is genial of Grice to have focused on what Austin called a 'that'-clause (I owe this to R. Hall who checked with the OED and worked with it). I.e. for Grice it's a bit like the 'occasion-meaning' of H. Paul:

what U means by x.

And what U means is

"that"-p.

I.e. the specification is in oratio-obliqua.

It is improper to wonder what the U meay have meant by "London". To use Langer's example. Or not.

But she shouldn't have dismissed the complications like that.

Dale notes:

"But though Langer notes the notion of speaker meaning, it is only to put it aside: "In the further analyses that follow, 'meaning' will be taken in the objective sense, unless some other is specified; that is to say, I shall speak of terms (such as words) as 'meaning' something, not of people as 'meaning' this or that" (Langer (1942), pp. 57-58)."

The 'this and that' (irreverent) of La Langer should be taken with a pinch of salt. Of course that may apply to 'that'-clauses.

"By uttering 'London' U meant that he was going to London"

conversational context:

A: Where are you going?
B: London

----

This is NOT to rely on a "Fido"-Fido theory of meaning -- referred to by Schiffer, too, as I recall in papers and stuff.

Dale concludes his genial note with the phrase I found so good, 'to let go':

"The fact that Langer didn't
make use of a notion of speaker-meaning
doesn't makes her work any less interesting, by the way. But"

--- by the Griceian way.

"Langer represents a clear case of
a philosopher who identified something like
a notion of speaker-meaning only to let it go. Welby
did not do this."

------

No comments:

Post a Comment