The bandaged leg

Speranza

Neale, "Ling. & Phil.", as referred to by Jones:

"He seems to be worried that in cases like ... [that of the bandaged leg -- by displaying his bandaged leg, Bill means that his leg is bandaged] there is something approximating natural meaning that interferes with the idea of ... Bill nonnaturally meaning that Bill has a bandaged leg."

-----

I agree, but this is subtle.

Grice seems to have been too problematic about 'mean', and he avoided 'sign' like the rats. But for Romance Speakers, it's all about the SIGN. It's signs that are natural or non-natural, or conventional if you mustn't.

Now, what _is_ a sign? In this case, we seem to be just registering the case of the belief, on the part of the addressee:

Bill's leg is bandaged.

Bill has displayed a bandaged leg.

------ cfr. "natural" uses of 'mean'. As in "The Rainbow Implies Rain" ("Dictionary of Philosophy"). We are not comfy with true 'natural' signs being 'signs' at all. Seth Sharpless has commented on this, and Wharton has credited him in his recent book.

So the thing is PRETTY subtle, and as Neale notes, it involves 'intuitions' on the part of Grice (as to how and when to use 'mean', 'imply', and the rest of them!). Cheers!