--- by J. L. S.
AS WE DISCUSSED Grice's treatment of authors like Chomsky -- contra Jesperson, as it were -- one wonders. Chapman indeed wonders.
How is it that Austin and his Play Group started it all, after all?
Grice is VERY CYNICAL ABOUT IT. But what he says lingers with me. He writes that Austin (and by extension, himself) were good at something. They were good at intuitions regarding 'ordinary language' or 'ordinary use'. The issue of intution is one that usually worries linguists, though.
And where did that intuitions and good judgememt originate? Grice suggests their classical background. In "Reply to Richards", in a passage meant to irritate Gellner, Grice writes:
"[A] prominent feature of this period in
my philosophical life was participation
in the discussions which took place
on Saturday mornings in term-time and
which were conducted by a number of the
younger Oxford philosophers under the
leadership of Austin."
----
"I have little doubt that this group was
often thought of outside Oxford, and
occasionally perhaps even inside Oxfor,
as constituting the core, or the hot-bed, of
what became known as "Ordinary Language
Philosophy", or even "The Oxford School
of Ordinary Language Philosophy"."
And here's the politics:
"As such [Austin's play-group] no doubt absorbed
its fair share of the hatred and derision
lavished upon this 'School' by so many people,
like for example Gellner..."
----
Two pages later Grice adds:
"It IS possible that some of the animosity
directed against so-called 'ordinary
language philosophy'"
--- one that spends seminars on analysing the locution '... mean ...' in "The spots on his face meant that he had the measles" but not "meant 'measles'" ('Why?') --
"may have come from people who SAW
this 'movement' as a
SINISTER ATTEMPT
on the part of a decaying
intellectual establishment,
an establishment whose home
lay within the ancient walls
of Oxford and Cambridge
(walls of stone, not of red
brick) and
******* WHOSE UPBRINGING WAS
FOUNDED ON A CLASSICAL EDUCATION,
to preserve
*CONTROL*
of philosophy by gearing philosophical
practice to the deployment of a proficiency
specially _accessible_ to the establishment,
namely:
--- a highly developed sensitivity
--- to the richness of linguistic usage."
(Grice in Grandy/Warner, p. 51).
Echoes of Bernstein on 'elaborate' versus 'restricted'!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Your writing on Grice (and others) on the early reception of Chomsky seems extremely interesting and important to me. I didn't know a lot of the things you have mentioned. Is there a single repository for this knowledge (the early reception from 1957 - 1960, say) of Chomsky at Oxford? Is there an article or book that talks about this in a rigorous and complete (or complete enough) way? I would love to read it. If there isn't such a piece, J. L., why don't you write it? It is important and helpful.
ReplyDeleteYours,
Russell
Grice for the Peoples!
ReplyDeleteYet many considered Grice part of the Oxbridge elitists, did they not?
IIRC Grice does allude to Kant quite a bit in Logic and Conv.--at least the "ethical" Kant. People should be nice, even with their language--ie clarify when needed. Alas, most aren't. Philosophy wit capital Ph.
Thanks to Dale and J for their thoughts.
ReplyDeleteYes, J: I think Grice is being self-critical and understanding that the very early "Grice", or the Grice of the heyday of 'ordinary language philosophy' _was_ a bit of reactionary -- an Oxbridge elitist, if you wish.
Oddly, Grice loved to be a reactionary. He blamed his father for that. He defines in "Reply to Richard" as a dissident, conservative, irreverent" reactionary -- i.e. rationalist!
--- And you are right about Grice trading in Kant for good measure. In fact, "Logic and Conversation" can be seen as a parody on Kant. Kant has his universability principle; Grice his cooperative principle. Both Kant and Grice have their maxims, which are turned 'conversational' by Grice. Not satisfied with this, Grice has only FOUR categories -- alla Kant: Quality, Quantity, Mode, and Relation -- turned into 'conversational categories'...
----
I would think Warnock, to comment on Dale's point, deals with much of that. "Saturday Mornings" --. Then, since Chapman is now quoting and locating, from that Tape, where she refers to Grice conversing with Baker and Warner on Chomsky, in a 'less formal' way, and noting some expressions actually pronounced by Grice there, like 'peacemeal', or 'the thing' -- one would need to do a BIT of research!
----
But I'll think about it! Thanks for the encouragement!
The references to quote then, as far as Grice/Chomsky are re: the early reception would be:
Warnock, Saturday mornings -- in his "Language and Morality". Blackwell.
Chapman, _Grice_. Palgrave, Macmillan, 2006.
--- But there SHOULD be others!