Grice and Brecht

By JLS
for the GC

Chapman notes that Grice's legacy will possibly be the 'first-person'. He was an intentionalist, and thus the focus on the 'first person' was crucial to him. I want to think that that was the case with D. F. Pears.

In "Intention and Uncertainty", Grice explores aspects of English modality
which are pretty hard to conceptualise. Consider some of the examples from
the elementary wiki entry on the 'future'.

Grice writes:

"In all of these, action within a future range of time is contemplated. However, in all cases, the sentences are actually voiced in the present tense, since there is no proper future tense in English. It is the implication of futurity that makes these present tense auxiliary constructions amount to a compound future quasi-tense. An additional form of expressing the future is "I am going to...". This reality, that expression of futurity in English is a function of the present tense, is born out by the ability to negate the implication of futurity without making any change to the auxiliary construction. When a verbal construction that suggests futurity (such as "I shall go") is subsequently followed by information that establishes a condition or presupposition, or the active verb stem itself contradicts a future indicative application of the construction, then any sense of future tense is negated - especially when the auxiliary will is used within its literal meaning, which is to voluntarily 'will' an action. For example: Person A says: "You will go now. You will not stay." Person B answers: "I shall go nowhere. I will stay."
The second 'will', in B's response, is not only expressing volition here but is being used in contradistinction to the usual first person 'shall' in order to achieve emphasis. Similarly, in the case of the second and third persons, 'will' operates with 'shall' in reverse. For example: A: Will he be at the café at six o'clock? B: He will be there. [Normal affirmation] HOWEVER, B: He shall be there. [Stresses that this is not the usual pattern that was previously established or to be expected (Last time he was late or did not show up)]."

He goes on to quote from Brecht's _Regufee Conversations_:

"Denmark was at one time plagued by a succession of corrupt finance ministers.
[...] To deal with this situation, a law was passed requiring periodic inspection
of the books of the Finance Minister. A certain Finance Minister, when visited by
the inspectors, said to them

'If you inspect my books, I shall not continue to be your finance minister.'

They retired in confusion, and only eighteen months later it was discovered that the Finance Minister had spoken nothing other than the literal truth."
Grice, 'Intention and Uncertainty', Oxford, p. 11

Grice comments: "This anecdote [...] exploits a modal ambiguity in the future tense, between
(a) the future indicated or factual
and
(b) the future intentional.

"This ambiguity extends beyond the first person form of the tense; there is
a difference between 'There will-F be light' (future factual) and 'There will-I be light' (future intentional).

"God might have uttered the second sentence while engaged in the Creation."

"Sensitive Englsh speakers (which most of us are not) may be able to mark this
distinction by discriminating between 'shall' and 'will'. "'I shall-I go to London'
stands to 'I intend to go to London' analogously to the way in which 'Oh for rain tomorrow!' stands to 'I wish for rain tomorrow'."

---- This bit below is what fascinates me about Grice and his focus on the
first-person:

"Just as NO ONE *ELSE* can say JUST what *I* say when I say "I shall-I go to London". "If someone else says, "Grice will go to London", he will be expressing his, not my, intention that I shall go." (p. 11).

The asymmetries marked by the wiki entry for the future may confuse people slightly.
"shall (and its subjunctive should). This implies obligation or determined
intent when used in the second person and its plural, and implies a simple
future meaning in the first and third. "will" (and its subjunctive form would). This implies wish or intent for the future, other than in the first and third person, in which it implies obligation or determined intent. Otherwise, it is used as the most neutral form and it is the most commonly used."

and I hope Pears shed light on this.

I recall Grice coining (or reviving) a nice turn of phrase for something
like this distinction:

'protreptic' (versus merely 'exhibitive'), vis a vis his 'modes',

Trespassers shall be prosecuted

which should relate. Or not.