The bandaged leg

Speranza

We were discussing this.

Neale, in Ling. Phil. refers to the very example by Grice, WoW:


"[I]n response to an invitation to play squash, Bill displays his bandaged leg (p. 109). According to Grice, we do not want to say that ... Bill meant that his leg was bandaged (though we might want to say that he meant that he could not play squash,
or even that he had a bad leg)."

According to me, either!

--

Grice is playing here with

"mean"

and

"imply"

--- unbeknownst to him, perhaps.

In most Romance Languages, there is no distinction between 'mean' and 'imply'!

("Si chiama 'mente' perche mente", the slogan goes -- we call it 'mind' because it lies!).

----

By uttering his bandaged leg, U meant that his leg was bandaged.

---- VERY HARSH thing to say!

What about

"By uttering his bandaged leg, U meant he was not going to play squash." VERY GOOD.

"By uttering his bandaged leg, U meant that his leg was bad." LESS GOOD, but still good enough.

For what LIES behind a bandage?

-----

Now use 'imply'.

By uttering 'p', U meant that p.
By uttering 'p', U implied that p.

Here we are considering.

"My leg is bandaged"

in its version which is non-linguistic as it were.

As in:

"I have blue eyes."

or

"My nose is big." (Opera by Alfano).

----

The topic connects with something we were discussing with L. J. Kramer in this club.

We were considering the non-verbal behaviour of this revolutionary leader, who by means of lights and sounds, meant,

"The brits are coming!"

We were wondering if he could have LIED about it. He could. Could he have been IRONIC about it? Less clear.

-----

In English, there is 'imply', and there is, I submit, 'exply'. "Exply" is less frequently used.

I would say that

"By uttering 'x' [where 'x' is the non-verbal behavioural display, "I have a bandaged leg"] U EXPLIES that his leg is bandaged."

What he IMPLIES is that his leg is bad, and even that it would be, under the circumstances, be a bad thing to play squash.

-----

This connects only with 'p' and "that-p" clauses.

By uttering "It is raining", U means that it is raining. Does he _imply_ that it is raining?

This connects with Grice's further reluctance to treat Moore's paradox as an implicature:

"By uttering "p", U does not IMPLY that he believes that p; only he EXPRESSES his belief."

and so on...

Cheers!