Of course we would never say that!
But wasn't I _fascinated_ to learn that Grice did keep his old lectures on Peirce's "general theory of signs". Grice probably found the 'general' pretentious. And we saw that the point in his lectures was an application of 'linguistic botanising', as it were. To see how all those crypto-technical stuff from Peirce, as parodied by Langer, could or could not be re-stated in more basic terms of the short Anglo-Saxon lexeme 'mean'.
When I talk of 'mean', I am reminded of Andreas Kemmerling (whom I quote in my "German Grice", along with Georg Meggle). Kemmerling notes in PGRICE, Grandy/Warner, that all Grice has done is explore the English 'lexeme', "mean". There is no corresponding lexeme in ... German!
Dale, in footnote to "Theory of Meaning"
"It is my general view, however, that for the history that culminates with Grice's works, Peirce is of less importance than Welby or Gardiner, which is why I gave these two such a prominent place in my story."
And so on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment