Further quotes on Grice on Peirce (after Chapman, pp. 71ff)

---

Vis-a-vis Dale's citations for Peirce in his original research on Lady Welby, etc.

---

Chapman has italics when he quotes from Peirce:

likeness
------ this may relate to Grice's brief theory of representation in Strand 5, I think, "the cricket team represents England".

Then there's italics for

indices
-- that Grice uses in "Meaning Revisited"

and

signs

and

symbol

---

Chapman notes: "Peirce later extended the term 'sign' to cover all these cases and used the specific terms 'icon' [used by Grice, 'iconic' in this brief theory of representation, then], 'index' and 'symbol' for his three classes of representation:

[Peirce]
sign 1. icon
2. index
3. symbol.

-----
Yet, in a move intended to provoke Lady Welby, almost, Grice writes ("Meaning") that words are not signs.

--

Apparently, the title of Oxford lectures is

(Lectures on) "Peirce's GENERAL theory of signs".

----

Chapman provides a reason why Grice omitted Peirce's icon (in those lectures): "Perhaps this type of sign is least amenable to being re-expressed in terms of meaning".

Which is plausible, if it were not for Grice having abused

iconic correlation

in his very general account of "Meaning" -- a full page. He thinks correlations are to be produced. The first type he calls 'iconic'. There's conventional correlation, and other.

Grice was obsessed with 'icon' in that it represented the first stage of meaning.

You utter "Ouch" to mean pain.

That's because "ouch" is an icon of the natural (nonvoluntary) thing you do when you are in pain.

Note that "ouch" does _not_ mean "I am in pain". It would be otiose for a witty writer to say:

"Grice is gross (I am in pain)"

whereas

"Grice is gross (Ouch)"

is a polite way of noting that your pun leaves some to be desired.

----

Then Chapman goes on to analyse Grice's 'sentences':

---

The position of the weathercock means that the wind is NE.

Surely this is more idiomatic, as Grice has it, in the past. Note too that he provides an analysis for the ex-post-facto, "U meant that". Who is going to be concerned with what U means? (No time).

The position of the weathercock MEANT that the wind WAS NE.

--- "But it wasn't" is contradictory.

With "... indicates ..." as per Peirce's 'index' it is different:

"The position of the weathercock was an indication [index] that the wind was NE", but that was just that. An indication.

I wouldn't know. The etymology of 'index' does not help, in that it is cognate with Latin, dico, I say. And surely weathercocks or their positions don't 'say'.

----

The example of

"those three rings meanT that the bus was full"

is then Grice's epitome or paradigm of a different sort of thing, which is NOT an index.

----

At this point:

i. it would be nice to retrieve Hart's views on this, in his early 1952 (Review of Holloway) that Facione thinks so important as to call Hart a paleo-Gricean, almost.

ii. to think WHY would Grice find it interesting (as it was, to US) to lecture the Oxford Philosophical Society about "Meaning". Could it be that it was Stevenson's simplistic points (in the 1944 book that Grice explcitly quotes) that he was after?

iii. Indeed. He seems to be saying (Grice):

"You see: in America, they tend simplistic views. Like Stevenson. But Stevenson is drawing on Morris and Ogden and Richards. We should draw, rather on our competency as native speakers of ordinary language".

----

iv. Grice knew what he was talking about. He perhaps saw his 1948 "Meaning" as an expansion of his earlier, more didactic, notes on "Peirce".

----

And so on.