--- There was a discussion elsewhere, by J. Constable, editor of Richards, "The meaning of meaning" (to be) for Routledge. This is all accessible online and archived. In any case, I did mention to Constable this thesis by Dale. The result is GREAT: Grice is NOW cited -- thanks to yours truly -- in the Routledge reprint of Richards. Along with a reference to Dale!
---
R. B. Jones writes:
"I recently stumbled across a PhD by Russell Elliot Dale, in which he (en passant) traces some of Grice's ideas on meaning to a Lady Victoria Welby (which just happens to be a place in Lincolnshire a couple of miles up the road from here)."
--- Yes. As Constable provides the right citation. This is a PhD that Dale composed in New York for the appreciation of Schiffer. It contains some interesting historic stuff, that should be quoted more often. E.g. by Chapman's biography of Grice. I would need to doublecheck if she relies on Dale. Since Dale makes some very interesting points about Stevenson, verificationism, and the rest, as it combines with the very early Grice of "Meaning".
Yes, the grand dame "Lady Welby" of Significs fame.
Jones goes on:
"In the manner of London buses I then notice that Russell mentions the same lady in his "Our Knowledge of the External World as a field of study for scientific philosophy" (in a not particularly flattering way)."
She is the sort of posh character Lord Russell would quote, isn't she? (As Grice, going more 'lowbrow', would quote from "Mrs. Jack" in the retrospective epilogue to WoW).
I think Lady Welby based his life in London, and I think her books are available online (to read, rather than to buy -- who would buy them? :().
Jones:
"So I thought I would (presumably unnecessarily) provoke the third by asking whether you (JL, or anyone else who cares to comment) have come across Dale's dissertation and what you think of that part of his thesis (or of the rest)."
Yes. I possibly came across it -- some time _ago_. I know then that it was well before Constable reprinted Richards's "Meaning of meaning", which quotes from Dale. I have NOT cited Dale explicitly on publications or unpublications, -- except the occasional publicly accessible fragment, as the one Constable uses to manage to cite Grice (via Dale) in his reprint.
---- It would have been nice if Dale had further continued with his researches. It is New-York-based, and quotes from standard editions of classics. Constable, and others, being England-based, can access 'unpublications', etc. In any case, it was excellent for Dale to have Schiffer as advisor.
Jones:
"He does, for my money, field what looks at first glance like a rather facile critique of formal semantics, but I don't suppose that need impact what he has to say about Grice."
I think it's sort of a typical PhD dissertation in that it attempts to cover too much. Just the HISTORICAL aspects are interesting enough, but it is good (for Dale's own sake) that he proposed to contribute substantially rather than just historically or exegetical. Exegesis and history are always second and third rate respectively in philosophical research.
So, one would need to double check his references. He does then mention
WELBY
and cares to provide some welcome bibliographical references to her work.
Then it's Husserl. This is cited by Richards rather. The book, "Meaning of Meaning" is of course by OGDEN and Richards. Constable just reprinted the book in the Richards's "Complete Works" Routledge reprint. Poor Ogden.
Then it's Stevenson.
How does it connect with Grice?
Since Grice kept ALL HIS NOTES, Dale (provided one would use his research to provide further research) should consider authors like PEIRCE. How early in the history should we go back?
Grice left some pretty complete notes on "Peirce on the theory of signs". I take THAT to be the immediate antecedent for "Meaning", by Grice.
The casual references to the 'causal theories' of Stevenson, and -- shall we add, Ayer, Ogden/Richards, -- are a different sort of fish.
Grice is never clear that he wants to OPPOSE 'causal theories' of the Stevenson type, because he DOESN'T. I have discussed this with some experts, notably Stampe, and we do agree that Grice is deep down in his blessed heart a 'causalist'.
------ Russell dealt with all this in his inquiry into meaning and truth.
When I did research on Grice I started to concentrate on OXFORD authors. Peirce, then, out. Russell, then out. Ogden/Richards, then out. But it IS important!
---
But note that Grice does quote from Stevenson. And if you do read Stevenson, "Ethics and language" (1944 and recall that Grice's "Meaning" is dated 1948) you do see many references to Ogden/Richards. Ogden/Richards as almost the first theorists of 'emotivism'.
And so on.
Excellent to be reminded of Dale and Welby, then!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hi J. L. I am very happy that you and others have found my work useful. I appreciate your critical comments as well. I have continued my research.
ReplyDeleteJohn Constable had corresponded to me back when he was preparing the Richards papers. I was very pleased, also, that he enjoyed my work.
I do consider Peirce, whom I greatly admire, in my historical chapter (Chapter 2). I hear the idea that Peirce could have been discussed more, but my sense was that Welby was the real source of the intention-basing (if I may) idea, not the other way around, even though Peirce, in fact, DID have a similar conception. I wanted to trace the ACTUAL path of the idea back from Grice and the textual path wetn through Stevenson, to Ogden and Richards, to Gardiner at Oxford, and then to Welby. Although Peirce had the connection to Welby after 1903, Welby had these ideas before she knew of Peirce's work. I couldn't find very convincing evidence of Peirce's influence in that chain from Grice back to Welby. Perhaps I have missed something. I will be happy to be corrected.
Concerning the writing of the dissertation. It was originally going to be ONLY philosophical analysis of meaning and a critical review of contemporary theories, and--as I hoped--an offering of my own. But, as things turned out, for various reasons, I simply started hunting down what Grice meant by the comment in "Meaning" (1957) that basing meaning on intention is "controversial". Who was discussing it? I was certain he couldn't have said this out of the blue. So, I started digging and found the story so interesting that I wrote it up and included it in the dissertation. But, the bulk of the dissertation was already finished by that time.
I am curious why you think that deep down Grice is a causal theorist. I make the point in my dissertation that Grice's theory can be construed as a causal theory itself. But, I take it you don't mean your comment in that way. I am curious how you see things in this regard.
Yours,
Russell Dale
Just to let you know, in case you subscribe to just this post/thread, that I have supplied a further blog post entitled "R.D." where I comment on points of this interesting contribution by R.D. himself. Cheers!
ReplyDelete